Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Sky Lawson — United States v. Sky Lawson (D. Md., Dkt. 351)
Summary
Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Sky Lawson, filed April 18, 2025 as Document 351, Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH, United States v. Sky Lawson, District of Maryland. Defense counsel submits it in support of a request for a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment. It states that the probation officer calculated an advisory guideline range of 33 months to 41 months, from a total offense level of 20 and Criminal History Category I, and argues the guideline range offers no useful advice. It states that the government has agreed to recommend a sentence of 24 months, which it calls the mandatory minimum in the case. It refers to letters from family members and friends in Exhibit A. It is signed /s/ Dennis E. Boyle, Counsel for Defendant.
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
“Sentencing Memorandum on Behalf of Sky Lawson — United States v. Sky Lawson (D. Md., Dkt. 351).”
Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-md-no-1-22-cr-00219-dkt-351-d-md-73eb3aec7f/
, SHA-256 809e3af7f8db0f9dda7d55a7652bbfedc35ebda6f89e38da61b21e11279451a7.Full text
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
:
:
v. : Case No. 1:22-CR-219-004
:
SKY LAWSON, :
:
Defendant. :
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF SKY LAWSON
Defendant Sky Lawson (“Ms. Lawson”) submits this sentencing memorandum in support
of her request for a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment. Although her conduct is indeed
serious, it represents the only legal transgression Ms. Lawson has ever committed.
Ms. Lawson has learned valuable life lessons from this incident, and she will never repeat
the actions that bring her before the Court in this case. For the reasons set forth in greater detail
below, we request a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment because we believe it to be
“sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a).
Ms. Lawson has pled guilty and admitted her violation. Her sentencing guideline range is
33 months to 41 months as calculated by the probation officer. However, this is a case where the
guidelines themselves should be discarded since they fail to take into account Ms. Lawson’s
unique personal attributes. In fact, the defense argues that under all of the 18 U.S.C. 1335(a)
factors, a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate in this case.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Ms. Lawson was a law-abiding citizen before the instant offense. Her life was
characterized by hard work, dedication, and love for her family and friends. Indeed, it was the
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 2 of 17
love for her friends which ultimately caused her to become involved in the instant offense.
Ms. Lawson resides with her parents in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Her life is centered
around her family, whom she loves and cares for very deeply, and her work with animals at the
APAW Veterinary Hospital and Wellness Center in New Carrollton, Maryland. The letters
appended hereto from her family members and friends show that she has touched their lives very
deeply. See Exhibit “A”.
A. Sky Lawson’s Family Background
Ms. Lawson was born on June 7, 1994, in Bowie, Maryland. PSR ¶ 42. She is one of two
children born to Michelle Haywood and Christopher Lawson. Ibid. Ms. Lawon grew up in a very
peaceful and protective environment. Id. at 21. She has always been very close with both her
parents and her brother, Jet Lawson, who resides in Bowie, Maryland, and works at an
automotive shop, see PSR ¶ 46.
Ms. Lawson has never married and has no children. Id. ¶ 47. She was, however, in a
committed relationship with Christopher Canales who tragically passed away in 2015 after
suffering a severe asthma attack. Id., ¶ 56. His death was sudden and devastated Ms. Lawson,
who believed that Mr. Canales would be the man she would spend the rest of her life with. Co-
Defendant, Michael Makoge, was a close friend of Mr. Canales. The death of Mr. Canales and
the grief Mr. Makoge and Ms. Lawson shared deepened their friendship, and Ms. Lawson came
to view Mr. Makoge like a big brother whom she trusted inherently.
B. Sky Lawson’s Educational and Professional Background
Ms. Lawson was homeschooled by her mother through seventh grade. Id., ¶ 43.
Afterwards, she attended Bowie High School and graduated in 2012. Id., ¶ 67. Since December
2024, Ms. Lawson has attended Prince George’s County Community College with a focus on
2
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 3 of 17
business. Id., ¶ 65. She is currently in her last semester. Ibid.
Since November 2021, Ms. Lawson has worked for APWA Veterinary Hospital and
Wellness Center in New Carrollton, Maryland. Id., ¶ 69. She was employed as a veterinary
technician. Ibid. However, in 2024, Ms. Lawson sustained serious injuries to her hand as the
result of a dog attack at work. Ibid. Since then, Ms. Lawson has primarily worked at the front
desk. Ibid. Notably, after the attack, Ms. Lawson insisted that no report should be made because
Ms. Lawson feared that the dog would be euthanized, and she knew how much the owner loved
their dog. Ms. Lawson’s love for animals is further exemplified by the way she has cared for her
two dogs, Boo and Esko. Boo is a black labrador whom Ms. Lawson had for 12 years, and Esko
is a 2-year old French bulldog.
C. Ms. Lawson’s Arrest
In July 2022, Ms. Lawson was arrested for the present offense. Ms. Lawson was charged
with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and aggravated identity theft. Ms. Lawson pled guilty,
agreed with the description of the offenses outlined in the plea memorandum and acknowledged
her role in the instant offense.
Ms. Lawson accepts responsibility for her wrongdoing and is sincerely remorseful for her
conduct. She is committed to facing the consequences of her actions and rebuilding her life after
making a big mistake. She is deeply sorry for her actions and looks forward to expressing
remorse at the upcoming hearing.
D. Sky Lawson is a Pillar in her Community
Ms. Lawson has received multiple letters from family and friends describing her as a
devoted and helpful daughter, sister, and friend. See Exhibit “A”.
Ms. Lawson’s mother, Michelle Haywood, describes Ms. Lawson’s generosity and
3
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 4 of 17
kindness. Id. at 1. Ms. Lawson “volunteer[ed] hundreds of hours of community service” and
“[e]ven on her job, she volunteers to work on holidays to spare her colleagues.” Ibid. Ms.
Lawson “was the one to deliver toys to families on Christmas Eve when volunteers couldn’t”.
Ibid. Ms. Haywood further reflects on the recent tragic accident Ms. Lawson was involved in at
work. Ibid. Ms. Lawson “was attacked on her neck and hand, dragged by an unmuzzled 116
pound Dogo Argentino while doing her job as a Veterinary Technician. Traumatized, bleeding,
in excruciating pain in the hospital bed, [Ms. Lawson] cried to me”, Ms. Haywood recalls. Ibid.
“She expressed, in that moment as we worried about saving her right hand, that she did not want
the dog put down because of her. ‘He (the owner) loves that dog!’ she cried. She didn’t want the
dog owner to feel bad or be sued. Nor did she want her employer to be put at a disadvantage
from the incident.” Ibid. Finally, Ms. Haywood describes how the instant offense changed Ms.
Lawson’s life. Ms. Lawson “changed her circles” and she changed her “focus in life”. Ibid.
“[H]er regrettable move” was the “turning point that catapulted [Ms. Lawson’s] growth to
responsible adulthood”. Ibid. Further attached to Ms. Haywood’s letter is a document which she
created, and which reflects the history of Ms. Lawson’s family and upbringing. See id., at 3-11.
Ismael Vincent Canales, a friend and the former President of the Maryland State Fraternal
Order of Police, has known Ms. Lawson for 15 years. His son was Ms. Lawson’s boyfriend who
tragically passed away in 2015. Mr. Canales recalls how his son “ranted about finding the love of
his life” when he met Ms. Lawson. Id. at 12. He understood why when he met Ms. Lawson
himself. “She was kind, delightful, funny, charming, intelligent, and cultured. The type of young
lady you hope your son brings home to meet the family”. Ibid. Despite Mr. Canales’ son’s
passing, Ms. Lawson “remains to this day a part of [Mr. Canales’] family”. Ibid. Mr. Canales
further observed Ms. Lawson to be “an upstanding, lovely young lady who volunteers a lot of her
4
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 5 of 17
time and wants to see only the best in people and the world”. Ibid. After talking with Ms.
Lawson and realizing “that [Ms. Lawson] recognizes and regrets the pain [her actions ha[ve]
caused, Mr. Canales is “wholeheartedly convinced that there’s no chance of her ever being
mixed up with or on the wrong side of the law after this episode”. Ibid.
Former County Executive for Prince George’s County and family friend, Rushern Baker
III also provided a letter for Ms. Lawson. He states that he has known Ms. Lawson for 20 years
and that Ms. Lawson was one of his “youngest and most dedicated volunteers” when he “first ran
for County Executive in 2002”. Id. at 13. He describes how she “encouraged other young people
to engage in public service” and how she “worked tirelessly on projects that benefited the most
vulnerable members of our community—organizing toy drives, distributing food to families in
need, rehabilitating shelters, and leading environmental clean-ups. These efforts were not merely
acts of obligation; they were a reflection of her compassionate heart and strong moral character”.
Ibid. Mr. Baker further states that Ms. Lawson “has expressed deep remorse to [him] personally,
and understands the seriousness of her choices”. Ibid. Mr. Baker has “no doubt that she will use
this experience as a catalyst for growth, striving to make amends and continue serving her
community in meaningful ways”. Ibid. Ms. Lawson “is not someone who takes this moment
lightly, and [Mr. Baker] believe[s] she has the potential to emerge from this experience as an
even stronger and more responsible member of society”. Ibid.
Karen Farmer, a family friend and retired Probation and Parole Officer with the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia states that she has
known Ms. Lawson since her birth as a life-long friend of Ms. Lawson’s mother. Id. at 15. Ms.
Farmer has “volunteered alongside [Ms. Lawson] many times over the years”. Ibid. Ms. Lawson
“is a delightful, generous and honorable young lady with a spirit for helping others”. Ibid. From
5
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 6 of 17
Ms. Farmer’s “personal and professional experience, [she] strongly believe[s] [Ms. Lawson’s]
poor decision stemmed from her inability to exercise good judgment during a young and
developing stage of her life”. Ibid. She believes “that was coupled with some gullibility when
facing a high-risk situation, as well as the inherent pressures of being lured by a close and trusted
male friend”. Ibid. Ms. Farmer concludes her letter with the following:
As a Community Supervision Officer, I’ve felt the pleasures of
observing individuals thrive and turn the page from lenient
sentences. I’ve also felt that dismay when others squandered that
golden opportunity. With the benefit of knowing Sky personally, it
is my professional belief that Sky is the individual who will take full
advantage of every opportunity given to her in the event of lenient
sentencing. Sky would present as a model candidate and success
story. A young woman immediately returning to the life expected of
her. Her recent strives for academic success alone, hint at the woman
she truly is. Sky promises to be one of those cases that would forever
remind us criminal justice practitioners of why we continue to
believe in redemption.
Ibid. Furthermore, additional letters are included within Exhibit A from Ms. Lawson’s father,
Chris Lawson, her brother, Jet Lawson, her aunt Yvonne Haywood, her friends, Chyna Murry,
Kelsey Garibaldi, Noddra Gray, and Reginald Staton, and her employer, Dr. Patricia Peynado-
Boyce who all agree that Ms. Lawson is a wonderful person who deserves a second chance. Id.,
at 17-30.
II. ADVISORY GUIDELINE RANGE
The Probation Officer has calculated an advisory guideline range of 33 months to 41
months, resulting from a total offense level of 20 and Criminal History Category I. The
guideline range offers no useful advice because it (1) is the product of a guideline that is not
based on empirical evidence or national experience; (2) fails to take any account of Ms.
Lawson’s culpability or low risk of recidivism; (3) would result in unwarranted disparity as
6
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 7 of 17
compared with sentences for similarly situated Defendants; and (4) is far greater than necessary
to promote the goals of sentencing in this case. The government apparently recognizes this fact
and has agreed to recommend a sentence of 24 months, the mandatory minimum in the case.
Furthermore, the guideline range, is only one of the factors the Court must consider under
18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
III. A SENTENCE OF 24 MONTHS’ IMPRISONMENT WOULD BEST SATISFY
THE GOALS OF §3553(a).
The Court must “ impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2),” which are “ 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.”
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In “determining the particular sentence to be imposed,” the Court must
consider these purposes, the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant, the need to avoid unwarranted disparities, and the need to
provide restitution to any victims of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
No workable guideline could ever “account for many of the myriad factors that are
properly considered in fashioning just sentences.” See United States v. Ovid, slip op., 2010 WL
3940724, *1 (E.D.N.Y. 2010). A departure is needed in this case because of the following
7
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 8 of 17
mitigating factors, all of which are highly relevant to the purposes of sentencing and none of
which are taken into account by the guideline range.
A. The Guidelines are not Based on Empirical Evidence or National Experience
and Fail to Promote any Purpose of Sentencing.
When Congress enacted the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it directed the Commission
to promulgate guidelines that assure the meeting of the purposes of sentencing, 28 U.S.C. §
991(b)(1)(A), and to use average sentences imposed and prison time actually served in the pre-
guidelines period as a “starting point”. 28 U.S.C. § 994(m). The Commission was then to
continually review and revise the guidelines in light of sentencing data, criminological research,
and consultation with frontline actors in the criminal justice system. See 28 U.S.C. §
991(b)(1)(C), § 991(b)(2), § 994(o), § 995(13), (15), (16).
The original Commissioners abandoned the effort to design the guidelines based on the
purposes of sentencing because they could not agree on which purposes should predominate, and
instead purportedly based the guidelines on an empirical study of time served for various
offenses before the guidelines. See USSG, Ch. 1 Pt. A(3); Justice Stephen Breyer, The Federal
Sentencing Guidelines and the Key Compromises Upon Which They Rest,17 Hofstra L. Rev. 1, 7
(1988).
In Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), the Supreme Court gave two reasons that it
may be fair to assume that the guidelines reflect a rough approximation of sentences that “might
achieve § 3553(a)’s objectives.” First, the original Commission used an “empirical approach”
which began “with an empirical examination of 10,000 presentence reports setting forth what
judges had done in the past.” Second, the Commission can review and revise the guidelines
based on judicial feedback through sentencing decisions, and consultation with other frontline
8
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 9 of 17
interactors, civil liberties groups, and experts. Id. at 348-50.
The Court recognized, however, that not all guidelines were developed in this manner.
See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 46 & n.2 (2007); Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S.
96 (2007). When a guideline “do[es] not exemplify the Commission’s exercise of its
characteristic institutional role, because the Commission “did not take account of ‘empirical data
and national experience,’” the sentencing court is free to conclude that the guideline “yields a
sentence ‘greater than necessary’ to achieve § 3553(a)’s purpose, even in a mine-run case.” Id. at
109-10.
The guideline regarding offenses involving aggravated identity theft is not based on
empirical data of past practice or on national experience since then. Because the Commission
failed to rely on empirical data or national experience in promulgating or amending USSG
§ 2Xl.1 and § 2B 1.1, and thus failed to fulfill its institutional role, this Court is free to disagree,
on reasoned policy grounds, with its recommendation. See Spears v. United States, 129 S. Ct.
840, 843 (2009); Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 101-02, 109-10; Rita, 551 U.S. at 351, 357.
The United States Sentencing Guidelines have faced criticism for their shortcomings in
accurately determining the length of sentences. One primary concern is that the guidelines often
rely heavily on factors such as the severity of the offense and the defendant’s criminal history,
without adequately considering individual circumstances and potential for rehabilitation. This
one-size-fits-all approach may result in disproportionately harsh sentences that fail to account for
mitigating factors or the potential for an offender’s successful reintegration into society. See
Amy Baron-Evans & Jennifer Coffin, Judges are free to disagree with any guideline, not just
crack, 2-9 (Nov. 7, 2011). Furthermore, the rigidity of the guidelines limits judicial discretion
and prevents judges from tailoring sentences to fit the unique circumstances of each case. Ibid.
9
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 10 of 17
This inflexibility may lead to sentencing outcomes that do not align with the goals of deterrence,
rehabilitation, or proportionality. Additionally, the guidelines have been criticized for
perpetuating racial and socioeconomic disparities in the criminal justice system, as they may
disproportionately affect marginalized communities. See George Coppolo, Criticism of Federal
Sentencing Guidelines, THE CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY, (July 6, 1994). Overall, these
concerns highlight the limitations of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in accurately
determining the appropriate length of sentences and the need for a more nuanced and
individualized approach to sentencing.
B. Need for Just Punishment in Light of Seriousness of the Offense.
The need for retribution is measured by the degree of “blameworthiness,” which “is
generally assessed according to two kinds of elements: the nature and seriousness of the harm
caused or threatened by the crime; and the offender’s degree of culpability in committing the
crime, in particular, his degree of intent (mens rea), motives, role in the offense, and mental
illness or other diminished capacity.” Richard S. Frase, Excessive Prison Sentences, Punishment
Goals, and the Eighth Amendment: “Proportionality” Relative to What?, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 571,
590 (February 2005). The guidelines include none of the factors bearing on Ms. Lawson’s degree
of culpability.
1. Sky Lawson’s Conduct was Aberrant.
Ms. Lawson generally lived a law-abiding life until the instant offense began. Her is
offense is completely uncharacteristic when viewed in the context of her entire productive adult
life. This Court must consider the aberrant nature of her conduct. See, e.g., United States v.
Howe, 543 D.3d 128, 132 (3rd Cir. 2008) (variance based on “isolated mistake” in otherwise
long and entirely upstanding life; see also United States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1084 (8th
10
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 11 of 17
Cir. 2005) (Defendant was a “law abiding citizen, who [did] an incredibly dumb thing”); United
States v. Davis, 2008 WL 232920 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Defendant was a first offender who had
worked throughout his 15-year marriage to educate his six children and whose offense was
prompted by economic pressures).
C. Need for Deterrence.
Research has consistently shown that while the certainty of being caught and punished
has a deterrent effect, “increases in severity of punishments do not yield significant (if any)
marginal deterrent effects.” Michael Tonry, Purposes and Functions of Sentencing, 34 Crime &
Just. 1, 28 (2006). “Three National Academy of Science panels ... reached that conclusion, as
has every major survey of evidence.” Ibid.; see also Zvi D. Gabbay, Exploring the Limits of the
Restorative Justice Paradigm: Restorative Justice and White Collar Crime, 8 Cardozo J. Conflict
Resol. 421, 447048 (2007) (“certainty of punishment is empirically known to be a far better
deterrent than its severity”).
Typical of the findings on general deterrence are those of the Institute of Criminology at
Cambridge University. See Andrew von Hirsch, et al., Criminal Deterrence and Sentence
Severity: An Analysis of Recent Research (1999). The report, commissioned by the British Home
Office, examined penalties in the United States as well as several European countries. Id., at 1. It
examined the effects of changes to both the certainty and severity of punishment. Ibid. While
significant correlations between sentence severity and crime rates ... were not sufficient to
achieve statistical significance.” Id. at 2. The report concluded that “the studies reviewed do not
provide a basis for inferring that increasing the severity of sentences is capable of enhancing
deterrent effects.” Id. at 1.
According to “the best available evidence, ... prisons do not reduce recidivism more than
11
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 12 of 17
noncustodial sanctions.” Francis T. Cullen, et al., Prisons Do Not Reduce Recidivism: The High
Cost of Ignoring Science, 91 Prison J. 48S, 50S-51S (2011).
D. Need for Incapacitation.
Ms. Lawson has an exceptionally low risk of recidivism.
Furthermore, Ms. Lawson has shown that while released on bail she has demonstrated no
intention of engaging in any further criminal conduct. She has met all terms of bail and has
continued to be a productive member of society.
Ms. Lawson is a first offender and was employed throughout her adult life. For all
female offenders in Criminal History Category I, the recidivism rate is 10%. See U.S. Sent’g
Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the Federal Sentencing
Guidelines. For those who have been employed, the rate is 12.7%. Ibid. Finally, offenders like
Ms. Lawson with zero criminal history points have a rate of recidivism half that of offenders
with one criminal history point. See Sent’g Comm’n, Recidivism and the “First Offender,” at 13-
14 (May 2004) [hereinafter First Offender].
The Commission has recognized the advisability of revising the guidelines to take first
offender status into account. See First Offender, at 1-2 (identifying goal of “refin[ing] a workable
‘first-offender’ concept within the guideline criminal history structure”).
In imposing the least sentence sufficient to account for the need to protect the public from
further crimes of Ms. Lawson, this Court should consider the statistically low risk of recidivism
presented by Ms. Lawson’s history and characteristics. See, e.g., United States v. Darway, 255
Fed. Appx. 68, 73 (6th Cir. 2007) (upholding downward variance on a basis of Defendant’s
first-offender status); United States v. Urbina, slip op., 2-0 WL 565485, *3 (E.D. Wis. 2009)
(considering low risk of recidivism indicated by Defendant’s lack of criminal record, positive
12
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 13 of 17
work history, and strong family ties); United States v. Cabrera, 567 F. Supp. 2d 271, 279 (D.
Mass. 2008) (granting variance because Defendants “with zero criminal history points are less
likely to recidivate than all other offenders”).
E. Need to Avoid Unwarranted Disparities and Unwarranted Similarities.
The Court must consider the need to avoid unwarranted disparities among defendants
with similar criminal histories convicted of similar criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).
The court should avoid unwarranted similarities in sentencing among defendants who are
different in ways not accounted for in the guideline range, see Gall, 552 U.S. at 55 (“need to
avoid unwarranted similarities among other co-conspirators who were not similarly situated”);
United States v. Ovid, 2010 WL 3940724 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (sentencing two Defendants with
similar guideline ranges to 60 months and 126 months respectively based on distinctions in
circumstances of the offenses and characteristics of the Defendants), and unwarranted
differences among defendants whose conduct and characteristics are similar. See United States v.
Parris, 573 F. Supp. 2d 744, 753, 756-62 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).
The chart below includes sentences of Ms. Lawson’s co-defendants who have also been
convicted of similar offenses and where Ms. Lawson’s co-defendants received sentences
substantially below the guideline ranges applicable in those cases and commensurate with their
respective conduct. Notably, there is a significant disparity between Ms. Lawson’s conduct and
the conduct of her co-defendants. The conduct of each of Ms. Lawson’s co-defendants was much
worse than Ms. Lawson’s conduct. Ms. Lawson’s primary involvement in this case was the use
of her mailing address for unemployment insurance benefits applications and mailings. However,
relative to Ms. Lawson’s co-defendants, her conduct is most similar to that of Aiyanna Mone
Washington. The defense and the government both request this same sentence for Ms. Lawson.
13
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 14 of 17
Co-Defendant Conviction Sentence Imposed
Aiyanna Mone Washington 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 24 months’ imprisonment
1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) 2 years’ supervised release
Restitution of $2,094,319.00
Christian Malik Adrea 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 36 months’ imprisonment
1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) 3 years’ supervised release
Restitution of $2,094,319.00
Michael Akame Ngwese Ay 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 53 months’ imprisonment
Makoge 1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) 3 years’ supervised release
Restitution of $2,094,319.00
Stephawn Malik Watson 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 53 months’ imprisonment
1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) 3 years’ supervised release
Restitution of $2,094,319.00
Dementrious Von Smith 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 53 months’ imprisonment
1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) 3 years’ supervised release
Restitution of $2,094,319.00
Christopher Thomas Yancey 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349, 1343, 63 months’ imprisonment
1028A(a)(1), (c)(5) 3 years’ supervised release
Restitution of $2,094,319.00
F. Kinds of Sentences Available.
This Court must consider all of “the kinds of sentences available” by statute,
§ 3553(a)(3), even if the “kinds of sentence ... established [by] the guidelines” zones recommend
only a lengthy prison term. See Gall, 552 U.S. at 59 & n.11. According to the Supreme Court’s
decisions in Gall and Kimbrough, federal judges are free to consider relevant circumstances
related to an offense and the history and characteristics of a defendant, and are not tied to the
rigid, arithmetic framework of the Guidelines. Indeed, Kimbrough and Gall have returned
14
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 15 of 17
sentencing courts to the “federal judicial tradition” of considering “every convicted person as an
individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate,
sometimes magnify the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 52; see also
United States v. Tornko, 562 F.3d 558, 560 (3d Cir. 2009) (“The sentencing judge is in a superior
position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case.”).
Ultimately, the Court must “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary”
to comport with the goals of sentencing. See United States v. Ollzovsky, 562 F.3d 530, 552 (3d
Cir. 2009). Congress directed the Commission to “insure that the guidelines reflect the general
appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which the defendant
is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious
offense,” and the “general appropriateness of imposing a term of imprisonment on a person
convicted of a crime of violence that results in serious bodily injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 9940).
Congress issued this directive in the belief that “sentencing decisions should be designed
to ensure that prison resources are, first and foremost, reserved for those violent and serious
criminal offenders who pose the most dangerous threat to society,” and that “in cases of
nonviolent and non-serious offenders, the interests of society as a whole as well as individual
victims of crime can continue to be served through the imposition of alternative sentences, such
as restitution and community service.” See Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 239, 98 Stat. 1987, 2039 (1984)
(set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3551 note). Ms. Lawson is plainly not a “violent and serious offender”
who “pose[s] the most dangerous threat to society”.
IV. CONCLUSION
At the time of Ms. Lawson’s sentencing, this Court will be charged with imposing a
sentence that is fair, but not “greater than necessary.” 18 U.S.C. § 18553(a); Kimbrough, 552
15
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 16 of 17
U.S. at 101. This bedrock principle of sentencing law cannot be fulfilled in Ms. Lawson’s case if
she is sentenced at or near the range proposed by the Guidelines. Rather, as reflected by the data
and analogous case law above, a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment is more appropriate in
this case.
Ms. Lawson is a good person who is profoundly sorry for her transgressions. She has
learned from her mistake and accepted full responsibility for her actions. She has no criminal
history and is extremely unlikely to recidivate in this manner again. Furthermore, Ms. Lawson
has shown while on probation she has no intention of engaging in similar criminal conduct. Ms.
Lawson plans to address the Court at her upcoming sentencing hearing to express her sincere
remorse once again, and to assure the Court that she will never again break the law.
Date: April 18, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Dennis E. Boyle
Dennis E. Boyle, Esquire
Boyle & Jasari
1050 Connecticut Ave, NW
Suite 500
Washington, D.C., 20036
Email: dboyle@boylejasari.com
Phone: (202) 430-1900
Counsel for Defendant
16
Case 1:22-cr-00219-BAH Document 351 Filed 04/18/25 Page 17 of 17
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 18th day of April 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send an electronic
notification of such filing to all counsel of record.
/s/ Dennis E. Boyle
Dennis E. Boyle, Esquire
17
File and source
- File
- 351.pdf
- Size
- 296,292 bytes
- SHA-256
- 809e3af7f8db0f9dda7d55a7652bbfedc35ebda6f89e38da61b21e11279451a7
- Our copy
- 351.pdf
- Original
- archive.org