Defendant Marlon McKnight's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. McKnight (E.D. Va., Document 27)

Summary

Defendant Marlon McKnight's Sentencing Memorandum, Document 27, filed June 30, 2022 in United States of America v. Marlon McKnight, 4:21 CR 71, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division. Through counsel, the memorandum states that McKnight does not dispute the factors or facts in the pre-sentence report and requests a sentence of home confinement, suggesting home electronic monitoring for 21 months, and moves for a downward variance. It states that McKnight got one EIDL loan for around $35,000, that the second and third EIDL loans and a PPP loan make up the attempts that bring the loss figure up to 105K, and that a loss amount of only $35,000 would have called for a sentence of 10-16 months. It is signed -S- James S. Ellenson, attorney for Marlon McKnight.

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

“Defendant Marlon McKnight's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. McKnight (E.D. Va., Document 27).” Original at ecf.vaed.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-usa-v-mcknight-dkt-27-e-d-va-1e4bad3c74/, SHA-256 3c71eb284b3fcb7662a67dc13f1d58baaf8ff4dbbd9eb241a778a4f95fe89a59.

Full text

Case 4:21-cr-00071-AWA-RJK Document 27 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID# 125

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. 4:21 CR 71

MARLON McKNIGHT

DEFENDANT MARLON McKNIGHT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW the defendant, Marlon McKnight, through counsel, pursuant to United
States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual, Section 6A1.2, and represents that he has
received the Probation Office’s pre-sentence report (“PSR”) and that he does not dispute any of
the factors or facts set out therein. In addition, McKnight submits this Sentencing Memorandum
in support of his request for a sentence of home confinement. This provides an individualized
sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to achieve the purposes of
sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(2) and accounts for the mitigating factors
present in this case including McKnight’s personal history and the offense characteristics. Since
this would be in the nature of a downward variance, McKnight hereby moves for that downward
variance.
As the Supreme Court stated in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, (2007), “the upshot is
that sentencing statutes envision both the sentencing judge and the Commission as carrying
out the same basic Section 3553(a) objectives, the one at retail, the other at wholesale.” 551
U.S. at 348. Above all, a court’s final determination of a sentence must reflect “Section
3553(a)’s overarching instruction to ‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary’ to accomplish the sentencing goals advanced in Section 3553(a)(2), “namely,
retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. See Kimbrough v. United States, 552
U.S. 85, 101 (2007).
McKnight would respectfully suggest that the appropriate sentence in this case is home
electronic monitoring for 21 months. There is no question that McKnight was wrong in applying
for COVID business loans, especially after his previous conviction. However, unfortunately,
everyone else was doing it in prison and at the Halfway House. He succumbed to peer pressure.
He only actually got one EIDL loan for around $35,000 and used it to help his transition back
Case 4:21-cr-00071-AWA-RJK Document 27 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID# 126

into post-prison life. He did not go to the Bahamas or buy fancy jewelry. He paid rent and other
living expenses.
On August 11, 2021, he was issued a CDL learner’s permit from the Virginia DMV. On
October 18, 2021, he was issued his actual CDL license. He did, in fact, try to start his own
trucking business, getting loads by bidding on-line in a fashion somewhat similar to that which
an Uber driver does. However, once he was arrested and put on pre-trial probation, that
arrangement would not work since he could not easily and readily leave the state. So, he has
taken employment with a trucking company and earns a salary, which is quite good. In a sense,
the loan money he received was used for exactly the purpose for which the loans were
designed. He got on his feet, re-established himself, and is now earning a good wage and being
a productive member of society.
As to the second and third EIDL loans as well as the PPP loan, other folks encouraged
him to apply for these, which make up the attempts that gets his loss figure up to 105K.
Another person actually did all the paperwork for McKnight and has done these scams with
many other people. That person either has been or will be prosecuted. McKnight did know
better and should have said no. He did sign the applications knowingly. This is not an excuse,
but possibly, a mitigating factor. Yes, he should have known better especially after just getting
out of prison, but he got out of prison in the middle of the pandemic. Those were very difficult,
scary times, full of so much uncertainty for everyone. He was in some ways grasping for some
sort of lifeline, wrongly. He cannot erase that. However, If his loss amount was only $35,000, he
would have only received an additional four points, not eight, and his total guideline points
would have been 10, calling for a sentence of 10-16 months.
McKnight acknowledges that it could be said that a sentence of home incarceration
does not necessarily satisfy the deterrence prong of the statutory considerations. However, as
to Marlon individually, he is on probation and can be sent back to prison upon any violation,
however minor. He is on the right track now. As for general deterrence, the message which this
would send is that if you do turn yourself around and have done everything right since you
messed up, you can be given another chance.

__________-S- ________
James S. Ellenson
VSB #20621
Attorney for Marlon McKnight
101 25th street #756
Newport News, Va. 23607
Tel. (757)343-0979
jseatty@aol.com
Case 4:21-cr-00071-AWA-RJK Document 27 Filed 06/30/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID# 127

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 30th day of June, 2022, I will electronically file the foregoing
with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of such
filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.

-S-
_________________________
James S. Ellenson
VSB #20621
Attorney for Marlon McKnight
101 25th street #756
Newport News, Va. 23607
Tel.-757-343-0979
E-mail- jseatty@aol.com

File and source

File: 27-position-on-sentencing-by-marlon-mcknight.pdf
Size: 162,862 bytes
SHA-256: 3c71eb284b3fcb7662a67dc13f1d58baaf8ff4dbbd9eb241a778a4f95fe89a59
Our copy: 27-position-on-sentencing-by-marlon-mcknight.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)