Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Joseph (Dkt. 94, D. Mass.)

Summary

The government's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Patrick Joseph, Case Nos. 21-cr-10231-FDS and 21-cr-10338-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed June 17, 2024 as Document 94. It states that Joseph pled guilty to a cocaine and cocaine base distribution conspiracy and to a three-count indictment charging conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud. It notes the parties' agreed range of 120 and 156 months and a guideline range of 151 to 188 months, and recommends 156 months of imprisonment.

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

Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 13




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                      )
                                              )
       v.                                     )       Case No.       21-cr-10231-FDS
                                              )                      21-cr-10338-FDS
PATRICK JOSEPH,                               )
                                              )
               Defendant.                     )


                    GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

       Patrick Joseph pled guilty to a one count indictment charging him with conspiracy to

distribute and possess with intent to distribute 5 kilograms or more of cocaine and cocaine base.

21-cr-10231-FDS.     The defendant also pled guilty to a three-count indictment charging him

with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud (Count One), wire fraud (Count Two), and

bank fraud (Count Three).    21-cr-10338-FDS. The government anticipates that there will be

one major objection for the Court to resolve at sentencing; whether the defendant was a manager

or supervisor in the drug conspiracy that involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive.

       The parties have agreed to a sentence between 120 and 156 months; a fine within the

guideline sentencing range, unless the Court finds that the Defendant is not able, and is not likely

to become able, to pay a fine; 5 years of supervised release; and the $400 mandatory special

assessment. The parties have further agreed that forfeiture and restitution will be determined at

sentencing.   The advisory guideline sentencing range based upon the calculation in the PSR is

151 to 188 months of imprisonment.      PSR ¶ 191.

       The government submits that the evidence more than amply supports that the defendant

was a manager or supervisor in a drug conspiracy that involved five or more participants.     The

            Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 2 of 13




defendant was charged along with 10 co-defendants.      He had direct contact with at least seven

co-defendants.    Even, if the Court does not find that the drug conspiracy involved five or more

individuals, the Court can readily find that the drug conspiracy was extensive, involving the

international importation of cocaine to Puerto Rico and then a network of mailings to

Massachusetts.    The defendant was surely a supervisor, at least to his brother Patrick Rinvil,

who was recently released from New York state prison and entered the drug conspiracy through

the defendant.

       For the reasons discussed herein, the government recommends a sentence at the lower

end of the advisory guideline sentencing range and at the top-end of the agreed upon disposition,

156 months of imprisonment.

       I.        ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES

       The government agrees with the PSR’s final calculation of the defendant’s total offense

level and criminal history category.

              A. Drug conspiracy, 21-cr-10231-FDS.

       As noted in the PSR and plea agreement, the parties agree that the defendant is

responsible for at least 15 kilograms but less than 50 kilograms of cocaine. PSR ¶ 117, p.53;

Doc. 411, Plea Agreement at 2. The defendant objects to specific drug-weight calculations in

the PSR but agrees with the resultant base offense level. PSR, p.53. The parties agree that the

defendant should receive a two-level enhancement because he maintained a premises for the

purposes of distributing a controlled substance at 100 Liberty Place. PSR ¶ 118; Doc. 411, Plea

Agreement at 2. The defendant, however, objects that this enhancement should apply to the

apartment at 1 Royal Crest Drive. PSR, p. 54. The government and probation agree that the


                                                 2

         Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 3 of 13




defendant should receive a three-level enhancement because he was a manager or supervisor.

PSR ¶ 120. The defendant objects to this enhancement. PSR, p.56. 1 Should the Court adopt

the government and probation’s calculations, the resulting adjusted offense level is 37.

             B. The defendant was a manager or supervisor.

       Prior to imposing a role-in-the-offense enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b), the

Court must first make two determinations—a scope determination and a status determination.

United States v. Joyce, 70 F.3d 679, 682 (1st Cir. 1995). In the scope determination, the Court

must find that the criminal scheme involved five or more participants or was otherwise

extensive; in the status determination, the Court must find that the defendant managed or

supervised some portion of the scheme. Id.; see United States v. Nuñez, 840 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir.

2016); United States v. Voccola, 99 F.3d 37, 44 (1st Cir. 1996). Proof of the latter is established

“if there is evidence that a defendant, in committing the crime, exercised control over, or was

otherwise responsible for overseeing the activities of, at least one other person.” Voccola, 99

F.3d at 44 (quoting United States v. Savoie, 985 F.2d 612, 616 (1st Cir. 1993) (emphasis added).

In making both of these determinations, this Court need not look any further than the defendant’s

own objection. “He did not regularly instruct any other participants to carry out the business of

the operation. On very rare occasions he asked his brother to help him and paid him to do so.”

PSR, p.56.




1
  Should the Court sustain the defendant’s objection, the defendant would be eligible for a two-
level reduction under USSG § 4C1.1(a) (Zero-Point Offender).      The defendant does not
qualify for relief under USSG § 5C1.2 (Safety Valve).


                                                 3

           Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 4 of 13




          The defendant had personal contact with at least seven participants in the drug

conspiracy: 1) His brother, Patrick Rinvil, 2) Donald Cue, 3) Cristian Alvarado-Deleon, 4)

Alvarado-Deleon’s family member, 5) Robert Monteiro, 6 ) Night Menard, and 7) Felix Baez

Munoz. Having identified at least seven criminally responsible individuals to this drug

conspiracy that the defendant knew and interacted with, the numerosity requirement is satisfied.

          The defendant’s objection highlights that he supervised at least his brother, Patrick

Rinvil.    See, e.g., United States v. Acosta-Colon, 741 F.3d 179, 205 (1st Cir. 2013) (for the role-

in-the offense enhancement to apply, the court must find that “the defendant managed or

supervised one or more of the other participants in that [criminal] activity”) (quoting United

States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 659 F.3d 108, 114 (1st Cir. 2011)); Garcia-Hernandez, 659 F.3d at

114-15 (even if the defendant had “managed just one [participant], section 3B1.1(b) would

nevertheless apply to him”).     Rinvil was recently paroled from prison when he entered this drug

conspiracy through the defendant.      PSR ¶ 15-22.    Notably, the defendant did not expose

himself to law enforcement by retrieving drug-laden parcels delivered from Puerto Rico.           He

instead sent others, including his brother, to retrieve these parcels and deliver them to stash

locations.    See PSR ¶ 48-60.     During surveillance in November 2020, agents watched as the

defendant circled the area where a drug parcel would be delivered.       The defendant never

retrieved the parcel after it was delivered.   Another individual retrieved the drug-laden parcel

and brought it to a stash location used by the organization, 1 Royal Crest Drive.     The defendant

did not bring the parcel into the stash location, the other individual did.   PSR ¶ 56.     After the

parcel was opened, Rinvil and the other individual removed the remnants of the parcel from the




                                                   4

           Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 5 of 13




stash location.    PSR ¶ 58.    This pattern of behavior is consistent with the defendant directing

others to facilitate the movement of cocaine after drug parcels were sent through the mail.

         Further evidence that the defendant supervised or managed the drug conspiracy comes

from the defendant’s own words. During an intercepted call in April 2021, Donald Cue

expressed frustration and displeasure that Rinvil was living at the stash location at 100 Liberty

Place.     PSR ¶ 79.   Instead of acquiescing to Cue, the defendant instructed Cue to stop meeting

drug customers at “base.”      Instead, he told Cue to send drug customers to see Night Menard,

“Have them go see Night… Start going by Night or just have Night take care of everybody.

That’s the way to go.”    PSR ¶ 79.

         Still more evidence of the defendant’s role is that he managed the return of a bad batch of

cocaine.     In April 2021, Cue informed the defendant that he received complaints about the poor

quality cocaine.    PSR ¶¶ 67-73, 81-82.     In response, the defendant agreed to take back the bad

batch of cocaine from Cue and discuss plans with Alvarado-Deleon.         PSR ¶ 70.     While the

defendant might not have been the ultimate decision maker about the bad batch of cocaine, he

agreed to take back the cocaine from Cue, further indicating his managerial responsibilities in the

drug conspiracy when customers were not satisfied.

         The defendant also had knowledge of the full scope of this conspiracy.       In an intercepted

phone call, the defendant explained how drugs were sent from “D.R. (Dominican Republic)” to

“P.R. (Puerto Rico)” before they were mailed to Massachusetts.       PSR ¶ 85.    This demonstrated

the defendant’s relationship with the international drug supplier, his knowledge of the drug

importation route, and his access to dozens of kilograms of cocaine.     Further, the call




                                                   5

         Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 6 of 13




demonstrated that other, locally based drug dealers could order kilograms of cocaine through the

defendant.

       Further evidence of the defendant’s role was found in the defendant’s cell phone.        The

defendant sent Rinvil to retrieve a parcel and sent an image of a USPS tracking application to

him.   See Exhibit A.    Exhibit A shows an excerpt of a conversation between the defendant (in

green) with Rinvil (in blue).    The defendant sent the image on page 3 and stated, “It looks like

gonna be today let shorty know.” Rinvil replied, “Otw (on the way) now.”         This further

corroborates that the defendant sent his brother to retrieve parcels to keep the conspiracy

operating.   The defendant did not just send his brother to retrieve parcels, he sent others to wait

for the delivery of parcels. See Exhibit B. Exhibit B is an excerpt of text messages with an

unindicted co-conspirator.      The defendant (in green) sent a photograph of two people sitting on

the steps of a residence followed by, “They waithi (waiting).” The defendant followed up with

a photograph of a USPS delivery van, and informed the individual, “She said call the office,”

suggesting a problem with the delivery.      The photographs attached to this thread will be

available at the sentencing hearing.

       The defendant’s cellphone also had examples wherein he informed Alvarado-Deleon that

he sent others, including Rinvil, to retrieve drug parcels.   PSR ¶ 91.   The defendant contends

that he received instructions from Alvarado-Deleon and his family member.        Alvarado-Deleon

may have been the local contact for his family member. Alvarado-Deleon may have even

relayed instructions to the defendant.    Alvarado-Deleon’s role does not negate the defendant’s

culpability for supervising and managing others in this complex drug conspiracy.      Notably, the

government is not seeking a four-level enhancement that would indicate the defendant was an


                                                   6

         Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 7 of 13




organizer or leader.   The government’s argument for a three-level enhancement comports with

the facts of this case and case law that the defendant supervised at least one other person in this

extensive drug conspiracy.

       In sum, the evidence is more than sufficient to support the imposition of the three-level

leadership enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b).

             C. Fraud conspiracy, 21-cr-10338-FDS

       The parties agree to the guideline calculations detailed in the PSR for the fraud

conspiracy. PSR ¶¶ 109-114; Doc. 90, Plea Agreement at 2. The resulting adjusted offense

level for the fraud conspiracy is 17.

             D. Multiple Counts Adjustment and Acceptance of Responsibility

      The government agrees with the PSR that the adjusted offense level for the drug

conspiracy is more than 9 levels more serious than the adjusted offense level for the fraud

conspiracy. As a result, the adjusted offense level for the multiple counts is 37. The parties

agree that the defendant has accepted responsibility for his crimes and is entitled to a three-level

reduction. The resulting total offense level is 34.

       There is no dispute that the defendant is in criminal history category I. PSR ¶ 134.

Based upon a total offense level of 34 and a criminal history category I, the advisory guideline

sentencing range is 151 months to 188 months. PSR ¶ 191.

       II.     SENTENCING FACTORS UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

       Consistent with the plea agreement, the government recommends a sentence of 156

months, which is near the low-end of the guideline sentencing range as calculated by the




                                                  7

         Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 8 of 13




government and probation. Consideration of the § 3553(a) factors demonstrates that a sentence

of 156 months is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to meet the goals of sentencing.

       A.       Nature of the Offenses

       The defendant managed a large-scale drug trafficking operation that involved the

shipment of packages each containing two kilograms of cocaine through the mail from Puerto

Rico to Massachusetts. The cocaine inside these packages was typically hidden inside

innocuous consumer goods, such as an air fryer. The packages were addressed for delivery to

various addresses in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where a member of the conspiracy

(including those supervised by the defendant) picked up the cocaine packages and transported

the packages to various locations maintained by the conspiracy. Often times, the defendant

literally supervised the delivery by circling the delivery location apparently conducting

surveillance.

       The defendant not only facilitated the shipment of kilograms of cocaine into

Massachusetts, but he also maintained stash locations for these drugs. As evidenced earlier in

this investigation, the defendant had drug-laden parcels brough to 1 Royal Crest Drive and 49

Woolson Street. 49 Woolson Street was the defendant’s family’s residence and the government

is not alleging that this location was used as a stash location. It is clear, however, that 1 Royal

Crest Drive and 100 Liberty Place were used as stash locations. Not only were parcels brought

to these stash locations under the defendant’s supervision, but agents also seized large amounts

of drugs from these locations at the culmination of this investigation. PSR ¶¶ 87-88. The

defendant’s use of stash locations demonstrate his sophistication with drug trafficking and

awareness of the dangers of drug dealing.


                                                  8

         Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 9 of 13




       The defendant conspired to distribute vast quantities of cocaine, with significant street

value. An intercepted conversation indicated that one kilogram of cocaine could retail for

approximately $33,000 - $40,000 at the time of this conspiracy. PSR ¶ 66. The defendant

distributed these drugs out of his own greed, and along with his greed, he used co-conspirators,

such as his own brother and Night Menard to move his cocaine. Along the way to his own

enrichment, the defendant left a trail of harm, not only by roping in others to this conspiracy but

also the addiction that is caused by cocaine.

       The defendant’s greed led him not only to drug distribution, but bank and wire fraud too.

Fraud during the COVID-19 pandemic was unfortunately widespread, resulting in a massive loss

to taxpayers and individuals who genuinely needed relief during the pandemic. The taxpayers

who funded these relief programs deserve to know that individuals who defrauded the system are

being held accountable and required to repay the money that they fraudulently obtained. The

government’s sentencing recommendation not only accounts for the defendant’s drug trafficking

conspiracy, but also for his fraudulent loan application scheme.

       B.      Characteristics of the Defendant

       The defendant is 46 years old and in relatively good health. PSR ¶¶ 156, 169-172.

Further, the defendant does not appear to have any significant substance abuse history or

addiction. PSR ¶¶ 178-180.

       The defendant was capable of work and appeared to have a capable home renovation

business. PSR ¶¶ 182, 184. Yet, the defendant’s greed led him to drug distribution and bank

fraud. In all, there appears to be very little mitigation in the defendant’s background that would

warrant a sentence out of the advisory guideline range.


                                                 9

           Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 10 of 13




       The defendant has many supportive family members. PSR ¶¶ 161-168. Yet, when

Rinvil came to the defendant after he was paroled from prison, the defendant engaged him in the

drug business. While it appears the defendant has the support of family and friends, he recruited

family and friends to engaged in bank fraud so that he could charge them a fee for the loan

application. The defendant’s greed not only led to his own indictment, but also his family and

friends.

       C.       Specific and General Deterrence

       A significant sentence of imprisonment is warranted to deter others from becoming

involved in cocaine trafficking as the dangers associated with drug dealing cannot be overstated.

Individuals tempted to engage in drug trafficking must understand that any involvement, no

matter how slight, will have immediate and harsh consequences. The defendant may have

thought that he was only facilitating the movement of kilograms of cocaine. His role, however

innocuous he deemed it, was in fact flooding our communities with poison. Imprisonment is

necessary to send a strong warning to others who might consider profiting from the drug trade

that they must resist the temptation. A sentence of imprisonment also accounts for the general

deterrence achieved by punishing the defendant for his bank and wire fraud conspiracy. The

government’s recommendation acknowledges the additional harm the defendant caused to

taxpayers during the pandemic, while not exceeding the advisory guideline sentencing range.

       Considerations of specific deterrence also support imposition of substantial incarceration.

Undoubtedly, the defendant knows the dangers of drug distribution and how harmful it is to the

community. The defendant knew that he needed to be careful about people coming to his

“base,” or stash location. The defendant trafficked in valuable drugs and insulated himself and


                                               10

        Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 11 of 13




his family from the dangers of keeping these drugs at home. A sentence of 156 months sends a

powerful message to the defendant that he should use his care, attention, and efforts to

productive means of employment, not destructive drug dealing and fraudulent scheming.

       III.    FORFEITURE AND FINE

       The parties have agreed that the “Defendant understands that the Court will, upon

acceptance of the Defendant’s guilty plea, enter an order of forfeiture as part of the Defendant’s

sentence, and that the order of forfeiture may include assets directly traceable to the Defendant’s

offense.” Doc. 90, 144, ¶ 7. The parties have further agreed that forfeiture will be determined

at sentencing and that there is no further agreement to the amount of restitution or forfeiture. In

the bank and wire fraud conspiracy (21-cr-10338), the government has filed a motion for

forfeiture in the amount of $40,984 reflecting the two fraudulent Payroll Protection Program

loans that the defendant obtained. Doc. 93. The government further recommends restitution to

be paid jointly and severally with his co-conspirator in the bank and wire fraud scheme to the

balance of $124,440. PSR ¶ 100, p. 48.

       Finally, $256,204.14 was seized from the defendant from a bank account where the

defendant co-mingled personal and business funds. After subtracting the forfeiture and

restitution amounts ($165,424), the government recommends that the defendant be ordered to

pay a fine of $90,780.14 in the drug conspiracy case, which is within the guideline fine range of

$35,000 to $10,000,000. PSR ¶ 203, Doc. 411 at 3. The government is not seeking a forfeiture

money judgment in the drug conspiracy case (21-cr-10231).




                                                11

          Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 12 of 13




         IV.    CONCLUSION

         The government’s sentencing recommendation takes into account the various factors set

forth in § 3553(a) and the sentencing guidelines. The United States recommends that the Court

sentence the defendant to 156 months, followed by five years of supervised release, and

forfeiture and fines as discussed above. The defendant must also be ordered to pay a mandatory

special assessment of $400.

                                                    Respectfully submitted,

                                                    JOSHUA S. LEVY
                                                    Acting United States Attorney

                                             By:    /s/ Philip C. Cheng
                                                    Philip C. Cheng
                                                    Assistant U.S. Attorney
                                                    1 Courthouse Way, Suite 9200
                                                    Boston, MA 02210
                                                    (617) 748-3101
Dated:    June 17, 2024




                                               12

        Case 1:21-cr-10338-FDS Document 94 Filed 06/17/24 Page 13 of 13




                                  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
and copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants.


                                              /s/ Philip C. Cheng
                                              Philip C. Cheng
                                              Assistant United States Attorney

Date:   June 17, 2024




                                                 13

File and source

File

94.pdf

Size

232,566 bytes

SHA-256

44418c88ef20d550d47cb992a10ca97a9c6a300e21a60df30c8600cde17b680f

Our copy

94.pdf