Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Keith Lawrence Middlebrook (Document 305)
Summary
Government's Sentencing Position for defendant Keith Lawrence Middlebrook, filed November 25, 2024 as Document 305, No. 20-cr-00229-DSF, with a sentencing date of 12/9/2024. It states the jury returned a guilty verdict on all counts on May 10, 2024, for eleven counts of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343. Probation calculated a Guidelines range of 70 to 87 months and recommended 70 months and a $25,000 fine. The government asks for a two-level obstruction enhancement based on perjury, for an offense level of 29 and a range of 87-108 months, and recommends 98 months, a $25,000 fine, three years of supervised release and a $100 special assessment.
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
Cite this document
“Government's Sentencing Position for Defendant Keith Lawrence Middlebrook (Document 305).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-c-d-cal-no-2-20-cr-00229-dkt-305-c-d-cal-7dc8d6f872/
, SHA-256 12e37129e751f30013dbfd908bf0e29acd2a921ce5e4f1ca2f980c659db5928e.Full text
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 1 of 16 Page ID
#:4969
1 E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
2 MACK E. JENKINS
Assistant United States Attorney
3 Chief, Criminal Division
KENNETH R. CARBAJAL (Cal. Bar No. 338079)
4 JOSEPH S. GUZMAN (Cal. Bar No. 310493)
Assistant United States Attorney
5 Violent and Organized Crime Section
General Crimes Section
6 1300/1200 United States Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
7 Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: (213) 894-3172/2438
8 Facsimile: (213) 894-0141
E-mail: kenneth.carbajal@usdoj.gov
9 joseph.guzman2@usdoj.gov
10 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-cr-00229-DSF
14
Plaintiff, GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING POSITION
15 FOR DEFENDANT KEITH LAWRENCE
v. MIDDLEBROOK
16
KEITH LAWRENCE MIDDLEBROOK, Sentencing Date: 12/9/2024
17 Sentencing Time: 8:30 a.m.
Defendant. Courtroom: Courtroom of the Hon.
18 Dale S. Fischer
19
20
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel
21
of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
22
California and Assistant United States Attorneys Kenneth R. Carbajal
23
and Joseph S. Guzman, hereby files its Sentencing Position for
24
Defendant Keith Lawrence Middlebrook.
25
///
26
27
28
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 2 of 16 Page ID
#:4970
1 The government’s Sentencing Position is based upon the attached
2 memorandum of points and authorities, the files and records in this
3 case, and such further evidence and argument as the Court may permit.
4 The government respectfully requests the opportunity to supplement
5 its position or respond to defendant as may become necessary.
6 Dated: November 25, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
7 E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
8
MACK E. JENKINS
9 Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Criminal Division
10
11 /s/
KENNETH R. CARBAJAL
12 JOSEPH S. GUZMAN
Assistant United States Attorney
13
Attorneys for Plaintiff
14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 3 of 16 Page ID
#:4971
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
2 PAGE
3 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................ii
4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES................................1
5 I. INTRODUCTION...................................................1
6 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS.............................................1
7 A. Defendant Developed And Engaged In A Scheme To Defraud
Investors During The COVID-19 Global Pandemic.............1
8
B. Defendant Solicited $4,400,000 In Investments From At
9 Least Five Potential Investors............................2
10 C. Defendant Committed Perjury During Trial..................3
11 III. PROBATION’S SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS.................4
12 IV. GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS................5
13 A. The Court Should Apply An Additional Two-Level
Enhancement For Obstruction Of Justice Pursuant To
14 U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1..........................................5
15 1. Defendant Gave False Testimony Regarding Magic
Johnson..............................................6
16
2. Defendant’s False Testimony Was On A Material
17 Matter...............................................7
18 3. Defendant Told The Lies With Willful Intent..........8
19 V. GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDS A NINETY-EIGHT MONTHS’ SENTENCE..........9
20 A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense...................9
21 B. History and Characteristics of Defendant..................9
22 C. Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Offenses’
Seriousness, Promote Respect for the Law, Provide Just
23 Punishment, Afford Adequate Deterrence, and Protect
the Public...............................................10
24
D. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities................11
25
VI. CONCLUSION....................................................12
26
27
28
i
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 4 of 16 Page ID
#:4972
1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2 FEDERAL CASES: PAGE(S)
3
Gall v. United States,
4 552 U.S. 38 (2007) ............................................... 11
5 United States v. Castro-Ponce,
6 770 F.3d 819 (9th Cir. 2014) ...................................... 6
7 United States v. Dunnigan,
507 U.S. 87 (1993) ................................................ 6
8
FEDERAL STATUTES:
9
18 U.S.C. § 1343................................................. 1, 4
10 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).......................................... 1, 9, 11
11 FEDERAL RULES:
12
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1).............................................. 4
13
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(A)........................................... 8
14
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1........................................... 1, 5, 6, 7
15
U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1.................................................... 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ii
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 5 of 16 Page ID
#:4973
1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
2 I. INTRODUCTION
3 In March 2020, defendant committed eleven counts of wire fraud,
4 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. On May 7, 2024, defendant
5 proceeded to trial. (Dkt. 260.) After deliberating for less than
6 one day, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts on May
7 10, 2024. (Dkt. 263.)
8 On October 28, 2024, U.S. Pretrial and Probation Services issued
9 a Presentence Report and a Recommendation Letter. (Dkts. 303-304.)
10 There, Probation calculated defendant's Sentencing Guidelines range
11 to be 70 to 87 months’ imprisonment, based on an offense level of 27
12 and a criminal history category of I. (Dkt. 304 at 4.) Probation
13 recommends a sentence of 70 months’ imprisonment and a fine of
14 $25,000. (Dkt. 303 at 1.)
15 The government agrees with Probation’s calculations but believes
16 the Court should apply an additional two-level enhancement for
17 obstruction of justice based upon perjury, for a total offense level
18 of 29 and a Sentencing Guidelines range of 87-108 months’
19 imprisonment. Based on those calculations, the government
20 respectfully recommends that the Court sentence defendant to a mid-
21 range Guidelines sentence of 98 months’ imprisonment and a $25,000
22 fine, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. Such a
23 sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve
24 the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
25 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
26 A. Defendant Developed And Engaged In A Scheme To Defraud
Investors During The COVID-19 Global Pandemic
27
At the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic, defendant falsely
28
1
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 6 of 16 Page ID
#:4974
1 claimed that he had developed the cure and treatment for COVID-19.
2 (PSR ¶¶ 10-11.) Defendant filmed videos of himself holding the fake
3 cure and treatment, posted those videos to his millions of social
4 media followers, and sent those videos to potential investors. (Id.
5 ¶¶ 12, 50.) Defendant built an elaborate investment fraud scheme
6 around his fake cure and treatment. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) Defendant
7 created fake companies, lied about high profile individuals endorsing
8 his product, lied about having a patent pending for his cure and
9 treatment, and lied about how investments in his non-existent
10 companies were risk free and 100% guaranteed. (Id.) Defendant
11 pitched his investments through text messages, phone calls, and
12 emails, including by sending a detailed prospectus to prospective
13 investors in which he claimed that QP20 was incorporated on March 15,
14 2020 and that National Basketball Association (“NBA”) Hall of Famer
15 Earvin “Magic” Johnson was a director and officer of the company.
16 (Id. ¶ 52.) Defendant sent his bank account information to those
17 prospective investors, and he peppered them with requests to send him
18 money, all in an effort to defraud potential investors of millions of
19 dollars. (Id. ¶ 13.)
20 B. Defendant Solicited $4,400,000 In Investments From At Least
Five Potential Investors
21
On May 10, 2024, a jury convicted defendant of 11 counts of wire
22
fraud. (Dkt. 263.) In executing his scheme, defendant solicited
23
investments from at least five potential investors. In
24
communications with an undercover Federal Bureau of Investigation
25
(“FBI”) Special Agent (the “UCE”), the defendant solicited and
26
arranged a meeting to collect a $400,000 investment in his fictitious
27
companies and products. (PSR ¶ 49; Dkt. 294, Trial Exs. 123-125;
28
2
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 7 of 16 Page ID
#:4975
1 Dkt. 285, Def. Ex. A, May 7, 2024, Trial Tr. at 149:3-13.)
2 Defendant also sent text messages to at least four individuals:
3 1) W.J.; 2) A.F.; 3) R.M.; and 4) E.S. in which he solicited
4 investments of at least $1,000,000 from each of the four individuals.
5 (PSR ¶ 49; Dkt. 294, Trial Exhibits 134-137 (Text Messages to W.J.,
6 A.F., R.M., and E.S.: “Investors who come in at ground level with say
7 $1M will parachute with $200M - $300M. Conservative Minimum. Plus
8 retain Stock Shares.”))
9 C. Defendant Committed Perjury During Trial
10 Furthermore, defendant testified at trial and gave false
11 testimony on a material matter with willful intent. To convict
12 defendant of wire fraud, the government was required to prove that
13 defendant participated in a scheme to defraud. (Dkt. 267 (Jury
14 Instructions) at 18-19.) One of the false statements that the
15 government alleged the defendant made as part of that scheme was that
16 Magic Johnson was a director and/or officer of QC20. (Id. at 18.)
17 At trial, the defendant falsely claimed that he had met Magic Johnson
18 hundreds of times. (Dkt. 285, Def. Ex. B, May 8, 2024, Trial Tr. at
19 197:15-16 (Q: “And did you ever meet Earvin Magic Johnson?” A: “Well
20 over a hundred times in the last 25 years.”) Defendant falsely
21 claimed that he had extensive conversations with Magic Johnson about
22 business, COVID-19, and defendant’s fake cure and prevention pill.
23 (Id. at 197:22-23 (“So we got him on the phone, and we all talked for
24 like 20 minutes. He [Magic Johnson] goes Keith, we gotta hook up,
25 meet up, and I said great.”); Id. at 202:10-15 (Defendant falsely
26 testified that he and Magic Johnson talked on the phone over an hour
27 and went over the framework of his fake COVID-19 cure and prevention
28 pill.); Id. at 202:25-203:12 (Defendant falsely testified that Magic
3
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 8 of 16 Page ID
#:4976
1 Johnson said he was enthusiastic about working with defendant and
2 that they planned on having a meeting.); Id. at 218:23-25 (Defendant
3 falsely testified that he discussed his fake COVID-19 cure and
4 prevention pill with Magic Johnson.))
5 Meanwhile, Magic Johnson testified at trial regarding
6 defendant’s false claims. Before doing so, he explained that he
7 cares about his community and seeks to balance making a profit and
8 doing good when evaluating potential investments. (Id. at 13:11-
9 21:3.) He also discussed how valuable his endorsement is, which he
10 referred to as a “Q rating” -- a rating that people use to evaluate a
11 celebrities’ appeal -- and how his rating is usually the second
12 highest in California and approximately ninety percent nationwide.
13 (Id. at 20:13-21.) When questioned about defendant and his fake
14 companies, Magic Johnson testified that he has never supported,
15 invested in, or been an officer or a member of the board of directors
16 of, Quantum Prevention CV, Inc. (Id. at 21:7-24:12.) Magic Johnson
17 also testified that he did not know defendant and had never committed
18 to working with him. (Id.)
19 III. PROBATION’S SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS
20 In October 2024, Probation issued a PSR and calculated a total
21 offense level of 27. (PSR ¶ 61.) Specifically, Probation determined
22 that defendant’s base offense level was 7, because the defendant
23 violated 18 U.S.C. § 1343, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1). (Id.
24 ¶ 48; see also Dkt. 303.) Probation also determined that an 18-level
25 enhancement applied because the total amount of the loss was
26 $4,400,000. (PSR ¶ 49.) Probation determined that an additional
27 two-level enhancement applied because the defendant committed the
28 offense through mass marketing, specifically by posting on social
4
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 9 of 16 Page ID
#:4977
1 media about his fake cure and prevention pill. (Id. ¶ 50.)
2 Probation also determined that a two-level enhancement applied
3 because the offense involved sophisticated means and the defendant
4 intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting the
5 sophisticated means. (Id. ¶ 51.)
6 Lastly, Probation determined that a two-level reduction applied,
7 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4C1.1, because defendant is a zero-point
8 offender. (Id. ¶¶ 59-60.) Based on these calculations, Probation
9 determined that the total offense level is 27. (Id. ¶ 61.)
10 Probation also determined that defendant has a criminal history
11 score of 0. (Id. ¶ 70.) Based on this, Probation determined
12 defendant falls within criminal history category I. (Id.)
13 With a total offense level of 27 and criminal history category
14 I, Probation determined that the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range
15 is 70 to 87 months, a fine between $25,000-$250,000, and a term of
16 supervised release of one to three years. (Id. ¶¶ 104, 107, 113.)
17 Probation recommends the Court sentence defendant to a low-end term
18 of 70 months imprisonment and a fine of $25,000, followed by a three-
19 year term of supervised release. (Dkt. 303 at 1-2.)
20 IV. GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS
21 The government agrees with Probation that the total offense
22 level is at least 27, however, the government believes the Court
23 should apply an additional two-level enhancement for obstruction of
24 justice based upon perjury, for a total offense level of 29.
25 A. The Court Should Apply An Additional Two-Level Enhancement
For Obstruction Of Justice Pursuant To U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1
26
Defendant obstructed and impeded the administration of justice
27
during the trial. He repeatedly attempted to obstruct justice during
28
5
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 10 of 16 Page ID
#:4978
1 his testimony in order to conceal his crimes and to convince the jury
2 that his lies, namely that Magic Johnson was on his board of
3 directors, were true. In doing so, he repeatedly lied under oath
4 during his testimony surrounding his scheme to defraud and the role
5 that Magic Johnson played in that scheme. This is sufficient to
6 trigger the §3C1.1 obstruction enhancement. See U.S.S.G. §3C1.1,
7 Application Note 4(B) (obstruction of justice includes “committing,
8 suborning, or attempting to suborn perjury”)
9 If the Court imposes an obstruction of justice enhancement based
10 upon perjury, it must make express findings that (1) the defendant
11 gave false testimony, (2) on a material matter, (3) with willful
12 intent. The Supreme Court has instructed that a defendant may
13 receive a § 3C1.1 enhancement based upon perjury at trial, but
14 district courts must be careful to avoid chilling the right to
15 testify—after all, “an accused may give inaccurate testimony due to
16 confusion, mistake, or faulty memory.” United States v. Dunnigan,
17 507 U.S. 87, 94-95 (1993). In light of those concerns, the Ninth
18 Circuit has held that a district court must make “express findings on
19 all three prongs necessary for perjury to amount to obstruction of
20 justice” under § 3C1.1. United States v. Castro-Ponce, 770 F.3d 819,
21 822 (9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).
22 Here, defendant’s testimony constitutes perjury and satisfies
23 all three prongs.
24 1. Defendant Gave False Testimony Regarding Magic Johnson
25 Magic Johnson testified that he never supported, invested in, or
26 had been an officer or a member of the board of directors of, Quantum
27 Prevention CV, Inc. See supra at II.C. Magic Johnson also testified
28 that he did not know defendant and had never committed to working
6
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 11 of 16 Page ID
#:4979
1 with him. (Id.)
2 Defendant testified at trial and directly contradicted Mr.
3 Johnson’s testimony. During his sworn testimony, defendant falsely
4 claimed that he had met Magic Johnson hundreds of times, that he had
5 extensive conversations with Magic Johnson about business, COVID-19,
6 and defendant’s fake cure and prevention pill, and that they planned
7 on having a meeting to continue their business discussions. (Id.)
8 Because Magic Johnson’s testimony was true, defendant’s
9 testimony must be false. It cannot be the case that Mr. Johnson did
10 not know defendant, did not commit to working with him, and had never
11 had a role in Quantum Prevention CV, Inc., as Mr. Johnson testified,
12 but also had met defendant hundreds of times, had extensive
13 conversations with defendant about defendant’s COVID-19 cure and
14 prevention pill and planned to meet with defendant, as defendant
15 testified, because those statements directly contradict each other.
16 Mr. Johnson testified truthfully and reliably. Defendant’s testimony
17 was deliberate, there was no indication that defendant’s inaccurate
18 testimony was due to confusion, mistake, or faulty memory. Defendant
19 was confident in his answers and appeared to have little trouble
20 recalling details throughout his testimony. Therefore, defendant’s
21 testimony was false.
22 2. Defendant’s False Testimony Was On A Material Matter
23 To convict defendant of wire fraud, the government was required
24 to prove that defendant participated in a scheme to defraud. (Dkt.
25 267 (Jury Instructions) at 18-19.) One of the false statements that
26 the government alleged the defendant made as part of that scheme was
27 that Magic Johnson was a director and/or officer of QC20. (Id. at
28 18.) U.S.S.G. §3C1.1, Application Note 6 defines material evidence
7
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 12 of 16 Page ID
#:4980
1 as “evidence, fact, statement, or information that, if believed,
2 would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination.”
3 Defendant’s false testimony regarding his relationship with
4 Magic Johnson and Mr. Johnson’s interest in working with defendant on
5 his COVID-19 cure and prevention pill constitutes material evidence
6 under U.S.S.G. §3C1.1. The issue under determination affected by
7 this specific testimony is whether Magic Johnson was a director
8 and/or officer of QC20. If the trial jury believed defendant’s
9 story, it would tend to influence or affect the jury’s determination
10 of whether Magic Johnson was a director and/or officer of QC20, as a
11 rational juror would be more likely to believe Magic Johnson was a
12 director and/or officer if it was true that defendant and Magic
13 Johnson had long conversations, had met hundreds of times, and Mr.
14 Johnson had expressed an interest in working with defendant – as
15 defendant stated in his sworn testimony. See supra at II.C.
16 Therefore, defendant’s false testimony was on a material matter.
17 3. Defendant Told The Lies With Willful Intent
18 The reasons for defendant’s perjury was clear: the jury would
19 not believe that Magic Johnson was a director and/or officer of QC20
20 after Mr. Johnson’s testimony. Defendant’s testimony regarding his
21 conversations and relationship with Mr. Johnson was thus intended to
22 deceive the jury, sway them from believing Magic Johnson, and instead
23 convince them that defendant and Mr. Johnson had a relationship in an
24 effort to convince the jury that Magic Johnson was actually a
25 director and/or officer of QC20. Thus, defendant lied during his
26 testimony with willful intent.
27
28
8
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 13 of 16 Page ID
#:4981
1 With a total offense level of 29 and a criminal history category
2 I, the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range is 87-108 months’
3 imprisonment.
4 V. GOVERNMENT RECOMMENDS A NINETY-EIGHT MONTHS’ SENTENCE
5 The government recommends a mid-level Guidelines sentence of 98
6 months’ imprisonment and a fine of $25,000, followed by a three-year
7 period of supervised release. Such a sentence is sufficient, but not
8 greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes set forth in 18
9 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
10 A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
11 The nature and circumstances of defendant’s offense supports a
12 sentence of 98 months’ imprisonment. In mitigation, no investor lost
13 money because nobody transferred funds to one of defendant’s bank
14 accounts. (PSR ¶¶ 39-43.) However, the Sentencing Guidelines
15 calculate loss by considering the greater of actual loss or intended
16 loss. (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(A).) Here, the greater of the two
17 loss amounts is intended loss for a total of $4,400,000, which is a
18 significant amount. (PSR ¶ 49.) In aggravation, defendant’s crime
19 was serious, defendant engaged in an elaborate scheme to defraud
20 investors of millions of dollars during the beginning of the COVID-19
21 pandemic, a particularly vulnerable time in our nation’s history.
22 (Id. ¶¶ 10-11.)
23 For that reason, a mid-range sentence should be imposed as it
24 appropriately balances the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
25 in this case.
26 B. History and Characteristics of Defendant
27 Defendant’s history and characteristics also warrant the
28 government’s recommended sentence. In mitigation, defendant has no
9
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 14 of 16 Page ID
#:4982
1 criminal history points, although he has sustained four driving-
2 related convictions. (Id. ¶¶ 66-70.) In aggravation, however,
3 defendant has a history of engaging in elaborate schemes to defraud
4 potential clients. (Id. ¶ 77.) According to an indictment that was
5 dismissed in October 2016, between August 2013 and October 2014
6 defendant devised a scheme to defraud clients by promising to raise
7 their credit scores even though he could not legally accept money for
8 his services before completing them. (Id.) Defendant also created
9 fraudulent documents and used forged seals from government agencies
10 as part of his scheme. (Id.)
11 Thus, on balance, defendant’s history and characteristics
12 support the government’s recommended mid-range Guidelines sentence.
13 C. Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Offenses’ Seriousness,
Promote Respect for the Law, Provide Just Punishment,
14 Afford Adequate Deterrence, and Protect the Public
15 The sentence must satisfy the need to punish defendant, as well
16 as society’s need to reflect the seriousness of the offense; promote
17 respect for the law; provide just punishment; afford adequate
18 deterrence; and protect the public.
19 Defendant has shown disdain for the criminal justice system, a
20 lack of remorse for his actions, and a lack of respect for the law,
21 as evidenced by a video defendant posted to his Instagram account,
22 “keithmiddlebrook1,” on May 10, 2024 1 – the same day the jury
23 returned a guilty verdict on all 11 counts of wire fraud. (See
24 Exhibit A (Video posted to Instagram of defendant discussing the jury
25
26
1 Although defendant states the date as March 10, 2024, in the
27 video, the date stamp on the video is May 10. Furthermore, in the
caption defendant wrote “I meant May in the Video,” indicating that
28 he misspoke when he stated it was March 10, 2024, and that it was
actually May 10, 2024.
10
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 15 of 16 Page ID
#:4983
1 verdict).) In the video, defendant states:
2 “Anyway, a group of people convinced a brain dead dumb stupid
idiot liberal group of people of things that weren’t true about
3 a company that never received or accepted a dollar. In fact,
they declined all funds as they were building the company. This
4
group of people convinced these dumb stupid liberal idiots of
5 lies. It was - to anybody it would be shocking. So, to let
everybody know, don’t believe the lies in the articles on the
6 internet. Everything is being taken care of at the Trump level,
the higher level, the Trump level. To have it taken care of.”
7 (Id.)
8 Here the defendant is referring to the government presenting its
9 case to the trial jury and the trial jury finding the defendant
10 guilty. By referring to the trial jury as “brain dead,” “dumb,”
11 “stupid,” and “idiot[s]” the defendant is showing a lack of respect
12 for the law, for the jurors that served on this trial, and for the
13 long history of a trial by jury that has served as the bedrock of our
14 nation’s criminal justice system.
15 The government’s recommended fine and sentence at the mid-range
16 of the applicable Guidelines range will deter defendant specifically
17 and others generally who might be inclined to perpetrate a similar
18 crime. Finally, a three-year term of supervised release will provide
19 an additional layer of deterrence and protection to the community,
20 and will help defendant transition back into society upon release.
21 D. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities
22 Section 3553(a)(6) requires the Court to minimize sentencing
23 disparities among similarly situated defendants. One way of doing so
24 is to correctly calculate the Guidelines range and then sentence
25 defendants within that range. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
26 38, 54 (2007) (“[A]voidance of unwarranted disparities was clearly
27 considered by the Sentencing Commission when setting the Guidelines
28 ranges.”). Here, under the correctly calculated Guidelines range,
11
Case 2:20-cr-00229-DSF Document 305 Filed 11/25/24 Page 16 of 16 Page ID
#:4984
1 other defendants “with similar records who have been found guilty of
2 similar conduct” as defendant can expect a prison sentence between
3 87- and 108-months’ imprisonment. See U.S.S.G. § 5A (Sentencing
4 Table). Consequently, the government’s recommended sentence, which
5 is at the mid-range of the guidelines, avoids an unwarranted
6 disparity with similarly situated defendants.
7 VI. CONCLUSION
8 For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully requests
9 that this Court sentence defendant to 98 months’ imprisonment,
10 followed by a three-year period of supervised release; a $100 special
11 assessment; and a $25,000 fine.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12
File and source
- File
- 305.pdf
- Size
- 257,137 bytes
- SHA-256
- 12e37129e751f30013dbfd908bf0e29acd2a921ce5e4f1ca2f980c659db5928e
- Our copy
- 305.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.