Opinion — No. 2:24-cr-00305 (Dkt. 58, M.D. Ala.)
Summary
Opinion of March 21, 2025 by Judge Myron H. Thompson in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, United States v. Tametria Conner Dantzler, case 2:24-cr-00305, Document 58. Dantzler pleaded guilty to wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1957, with a guidelines range of 57 to 71 months, and moved for a downward variance to probation based primarily on her family caregiving responsibilities, which the government opposed. The court decides to vary downward but finds that probation with no incarceration would not be appropriate, and it delays the start of the term to allow care arrangements. It also orders payment of $ 927,338.47 plus a special assessment of $ 200.
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
“Opinion — No. 2:24-cr-00305 (Dkt. 58, M.D. Ala.).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/opinion-no-2-24-cr-00305-dkt-58-m-d-ala-60cbc1cc1f/
, SHA-256 5760c2843081947a7c96e46976ac160d0379e127b57fd1c7efb909caa3e97117.Full text
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 1 of 32
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) CRIMINAL ACTION NO.
v. ) 2:24cr305-MHT
) (WO)
TAMETRIA CONNER DANTZLER )
OPINION
Defendant Tametria Conner Dantzler pleaded guilty to
a two-count information, one count charging wire fraud
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and the other charging
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Her
Sentencing Guidelines incarceration range is 57 to 71
months. Dantzler moved for a downward variance to a
sentence of probation, based primarily on the impact her
incarceration and the attendant loss of caregiving would
have on her four children, who range in age from one to
11. Two have been diagnosed with autism and a third with
a developmental disability, and Dantzler is the primary
caregiver for all four. The government opposes the
motion. Dantzer’s sentencing was suspended so that the
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 2 of 32
parties could file briefs addressing the evidence
presented on the motion at the sentencing and so that the
court could then deliberate on the motion.
For the following reasons, the court will vary
downward, but finds that a sentence of probation with no
incarceration would not be appropriate.
I.
In determining a criminal sentence, district courts
generally proceed in three steps. First, they calculate
the sentencing range according to the sentencing table
promulgated by the United States Sentencing Commission.
See United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines
Manual § 1B1.1(a) (Nov. 2024) (U.S.S.G.). Second, they
look to relevant policy statements from the Commission
to determine whether the specific characteristics of the
offender and the details of the offense warrant a
modification to the sentencing range. See id. at
2
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 3 of 32
§ 1B1.1(b). And, third, they independently determine an
appropriate sentence in light of the factors set out in
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See id. at § 1B1.1(c); see also
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259-60, 125 S.Ct.
738 (2005). At this final step, if the court finds it
necessary to impose a sentence “outside the guidelines
framework,” the sentence is termed a “variance.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1, cmt. (backg'd.). Adjustments to the
sentence made at step two, on the other hand, are referred
to as “departures.” Id. at § 1B1.1, cmt. n.1(F).
Section 3553(a) requires courts to impose “a
sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2)” of
that subsection. Those purposes 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;
3
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 4 of 32
“(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). The court must also consider
“the nature and circumstances of the offense and the
history and characteristics of the defendant,”
§ 3553(a)(1), “the kinds of sentences available,”
§ 3553(a)(3), “the kinds of sentence and the sentencing
range” for the offense under the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines, § 3553(a)(4), “any pertinent policy
statement” issued by the Sentencing Commission,
§ 3553(a)(5), “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence
disparities among defendants with similar records who
have been found guilty of similar conduct,” § 3553(a)(6),
and “the need to provide restitution to any victims of
the offense,” § 3553(a)(7).
4
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 5 of 32
Therefore, the Guidelines are only “one factor among
several courts must consider in determining an
appropriate sentence.” Kimbrough v. United States, 552
U.S. 85, 90, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007). While Guidelines
sentences generally should approximate the § 3553(a)
factors, trial courts may, in the course of an individual
sentencing, vary at the third step above because “the
case at hand falls outside the ‘heartland’ to which the
Commission intends individual Guidelines to apply” or
that “the Guidelines sentence itself fails properly to
reflect § 3553(a) considerations.” Rita v. United States,
551 U.S. 338, 351, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007).
To be sure, a sentencing court has considerable
discretion in determining an appropriate sentence, but
the sentence must still be reasonable. See United States
v. Irey, 612 F.3d 1160, 1188-89 (11th Cir. 2010).
5
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 6 of 32
II.
The court now turns to the application of the above
principles.
A.
Dantzler’s base offense level is seven, but she
received a significant bump in offense level due to the
amount of loss to the government and the application of
multiple specific offense characteristics. After
adjustments for acceptance of responsibility and for
having zero criminal history points, her total offense
level was 25. As her criminal history category is I, her
resulting guideline imprisonment range is 57 to 71
months. This puts her in Zone D of the sentencing table,
which requires a sentence of incarceration. See U.S.S.G.
§ 5C1.1(f).
Dantzler seeks a variance based principally on the
impact her incarceration would have on her children. In
6
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 7 of 32
evaluating Dantzler's request for a variance, the court
consulted the policy statement issued by the Sentencing
Commission on the appropriate impact of family ties and
responsibilities in sentencing: U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. See
also 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5). Although this statement
applies most clearly in the context of departures, the
court found the reasoning behind it pertinent to its
consideration of a variance. Indeed, the court has often
looked to the Commission's policy statements concerning
departures when considering whether a variance is
appropriate. See, e.g., United States v. Ferguson, 942
F. Supp. 2d 1186, 1194 (M.D. Ala. 2013) (Thompson, J.);
United States v. Flowers, 946 F. Supp. 2d 1295, 1299
(M.D. Ala. 2013) (Thompson, J.); United States v. Todd,
618 F. Supp. 2d 1349, 1353 (M.D. Ala. 2009) (Thompson,
J.).
The Guidelines policy statement on family ties and
responsibilities, § 5H1.6, provides that “family ties and
7
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 8 of 32
responsibilities are not ordinarily relevant in
determining whether a departure may be warranted.”
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. However, the commentary to § 5H1.6
authorizes a departure “based on loss of caretaking or
financial support” in extraordinary cases. Id. cmt. n.1.
A court deciding whether to grant such a departure must
consider, among other things, the “seriousness of the
offense,” and must find the following four circumstances:
“(i) The defendant's service of a sentence
within the applicable guideline range will cause
a substantial, direct, and specific loss of
essential caretaking, or essential financial
support, to the defendant's family.
“(ii) The loss of caretaking or financial
support substantially exceeds the harm
ordinarily incident to incarceration for a
similarly situated defendant. For example, the
fact that the defendant's family might incur
some degree of financial hardship or suffer to
some extent from the absence of a parent through
incarceration is not in itself sufficient as a
basis for departure because such hardship or
suffering is of a sort ordinarily incident to
incarceration.
“(iii) The loss of caretaking or financial
support is one for which no effective remedial
8
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 9 of 32
or ameliorative programs reasonably are
available, making the defendant's caretaking or
financial support irreplaceable to the
defendant's family.
“(iv) The departure effectively will address
the loss of caretaking or financial support.”
Id. cmt. n.1(B).1
B.
Applying the above principles, the court finds that
Dantzler committed very serious offenses. She defrauded
the government by using false information to obtain loans
and grants from pandemic-relief programs. Her guilty
plea related to an application for an Economic Injury
1. Though Dantzler did not request a departure under
this provision, the court considered granting her a
departure under this provision and exercised its
discretion not to do so. But, in the absence of the
variance granted, the court would then have departed
downward so as to impose the same sentence imposed today.
9
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 10 of 32
Disaster Loan that contained false information about the
applicant organization’s date of establishment, number
of employees, revenues, and sales. After receiving a
loan of $ 48,000 for the organization, she laundered the
funds by moving them from her bank account to another
account. She then used the funds to pay off a home
mortgage and her husband’s car loan. But her relevant
conduct went well beyond that. She also submitted
fraudulent loan and grant applications on behalf of a
legitimate non-profit organization she had founded and
for family and friends in Mississippi. She falsified the
number of employees and payroll of organizations to
increase the amount of funds they would receive, and
exchanged false “payroll checks” in an effort to hide the
fraud. She also received “consulting fees” from
individuals associated with organizations she assisted.
She used the proceeds of the fraud to buy multiple
residential properties, with the intent of renting them
10
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 11 of 32
out as low-income housing. She obtained a total of
approximately $ 927,338.47 in pandemic-relief funds for
the organizations associated with her or her husband
based on fraudulent applications. In addition, the
others she assisted in submitting fraudulent applications
resulted in another $ 1,049,864 in fraudulent
pandemic-relief loans. In short, she committed frauds
approaching a total of two million dollars.
Her offenses, therefore, resulted in a very
significant loss to the government and taxpayers.2 Given
the size of the loss, a sentence of incarceration is
warranted for both deterrence and punishment. Also,
there is the important factor of fairness to others who
have committed fraudulent offenses of similar enormity
and circumstances and who would, in general, likely have
2. There is no indication that her offense involved
her children or placed her children or family in danger
of violence. However, it appears that some of her adult
relatives and her husband might have been involved.
11
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 12 of 32
received or would be looking at significant sentences as
well.
C.
The other significant factor the court must consider
is the impact of a Guidelines sentence on Dantzler’s
children. The court has before it the testimony of Dr.
Tyler Whitney and the supplemental declarations under
penalty of perjury submitted by Whitney and Dantzler’s
soon-to-be ex-husband. Dantzler, who is the process of
a divorce, lives alone with her four children who are
ages one, three, five, and 11. She homeschools the oldest
two children, both of whom have been diagnosed with
autism. The three-year old has also been diagnosed with
a developmental disability that resembles autism.
Dantzler is nursing the one-year-old.
Dantzler’s 11-year-old, C., has autism spectrum
disorder with level-two support needs, as well as
12
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 13 of 32
intellectual disability.3 His developmental age is half
to a third lower than his chronological age of 11, but
he is tall for his age, weighs approximately 200 pounds,
and looks like a teenager. He lacks impulse control and
self-regulation and has a low frustration tolerance. He
does not understand “if-then thinking.” If he wants
something, he continues to ask for it and becomes
3. There are three support levels in people with
autism. Level one support is for people with very mild
cases, who may simply need some assistance with certain
social interaction skills. People with level-two support
needs cannot work or complete assigned tasks
independently at home or at school. They often leave
the task they are working on, whether it be eating
breakfast, getting dressed, or schoolwork. They are
easily distracted by things that would not distract
people without the condition, due to their unique
perception. They need a familiar person and a familiar
environment in order to learn, and if either of these is
not present, it is very difficult for them to be taught
or learn. Their behavior is socially inappropriate, and
they push for their needs to be met regardless of the
circumstances. A person with level-three support needs
often has no language ability or no viable language and
requires 24-hour visual supervision.
13
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 14 of 32
increasingly frustrated and dysregulated until he gets
what he wants. When he is dysregulated, he uses a loud
and commanding voice and engages in quick, unpredictable,
agitated movements. His language breaks down and he
engages in ritualistic and repetitive language.
As Whitney testified, when there is disruption in
their routine, children with autism become dysregulated
and are not able to calm themselves. Children with autism
have a primary “person.” If there is a disruption in
their routine, they look for “their person” to make sense
of that disruption. If their person is removed for a
significant period of time, they can lose skills that
they have gained in the past, such as toileting, and can
begin escaping or acting out aggressively. The extent
and permanence of the damage depends in part on the
child’s unique characteristics, age, and whether they are
in a critical developmental period.
14
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 15 of 32
Dantzler is C.’s “person,” and he relies on her to
make sense of the world and for his sense of security.
He has a very difficult time being separated from his
mother. When she showers, he sits outside the bathroom
door knocking and saying “Mom” to reassure himself that
she is in there.
When he attended public school previously, he was
bullied and came home with “marks” on him. Dantzler was
unsatisfied with the explanations she received from the
school and felt school staff could not guarantee his
safety, so she began homeschooling him, using an online
academy for curriculum. According to Dr. Whitney, C.
requires “hand over hand,” or one-on-one, teaching to
provide constant reminders of what he needs to do.
Educating C. takes a very in-depth knowledge of what he
can tolerate and what he cannot, because if pushed too
hard, he may shut down or have a meltdown. Dantzler has
obtained the training necessary to do so.
15
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 16 of 32
Dantzler has educated herself extensively about
autism. She took C. to specialists to be diagnosed when
local doctors initially minimized his symptoms, and she
arranged for him to receive early intervention plans,
occupational therapy, social skills training, and applied
behavior analysis.
Dr. Whitney opined that Dantzler’s caretaking of C
is “irreplaceable.” Were Dantzler taken out of his life,
the transition for him would likely be “incredibly rough”
with a noticeable increase in his autism behaviors, and
the damage he would likely suffer would be permanent
because the important developmental window he is
currently in would have passed. Whitney testified that
he would expect to see a “dramatic and severe” impact on
C. if Dantzler were incarcerated, including “profound
decompensation” of skills he has learned and regression
in behavior. Given C.’s size, Whitney also expressed
concern that he could become physically destructive. And
16
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 17 of 32
he expected damage to C. regardless of the length of
incarceration.
Dantzler’s second oldest child, A., who is five years
old, also has autism with level-two support needs, as
well as attention deficit disorder, combined type. A.
has a delayed understanding of personal space and is very
distractable and impulsive. A. constantly makes noise,
pushes boundaries, and engages in risky activity such as
climbing and jumping from one piece of furniture to
another if not stopped from doing so, and has a tendency
to elope, or run away. Dantzler has enrolled A. in an
electronic-monitoring program for individuals who tend
to elope, which allows local law enforcement to locate
them if necessary. Dantzler has been homeschooling A.
as well. Dantzler arranged for him to receive early
intervention plans, occupational therapy, social skills
building, and applied behavior analysis, and he continues
to need the last three. Dr. Whitney opined that
17
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 18 of 32
Dantzler’s care of A. is irreplaceable, and that A. is
likely to experience regression in his behavior and may
shut down to learning if she is incarcerated. However,
he felt it likely that A. could overcome losses over time
due to his age, unlike C.
Dantzler’s third child, L., who is three years old,
has been diagnosed with developmental delays. She has
symptoms similar to autism spectrum disorder, including
disturbance of skin sensation, atypical sensory
responding, and speech-language issues. According to Dr.
Whitney, it is possible that L. will be diagnosed with
autism in the future, and he noted that it is quite
difficult to diagnose autism in young girls. He believes
the child would have a difficult time with Dantzler being
sent to prison because she has imprinted on Dantzler. L.
is in a window of opportunity for growth that “quite
possibly” would be lost, causing permanent damage to the
child.
18
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 19 of 32
Overall, while Dr. Whitney predicted the impact on
the three children of Dantzler’s being taken out of their
lives would be “devastating,” her absence would not be
devastating no matter the extent of that absence. For
example, Whitney explained that, as to C., “[I] can't
speak to any amount of time precisely,” and then went on
to explain that “her being away from him even for a day
would cause difficulty for C,” that his mother “being
gone say 12 months” would cause a “lot of difficulty,”
and that “5 years” would cause “Five times the
difficulty.” In short, the extent of the negative impact
of her absence on each of her children depends on the
length of that absence.
Dantzler’s soon-to-be ex-husband is not able to
replace her. He works full-time at a ‘warehouse club’
store driving a forklift and stocking shelves; he cannot
homeschool the children or care for the two youngest
during the day. Even if he were to send the two older
19
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 20 of 32
children back to public school and the two youngest to
daycare, he does not remain alone with the children for
more than a couple of hours, and his current role is
limited to driving them to and from treatment and
visiting with them in Dantzler’s home. Dantzler is the
parent who has cared for the children and knows how to
provide the specialized care needed for their
disabilities. When they are with their father, the older
children constantly ask when their mother will be back.
The father does not understand the children’s diagnoses
or the proper treatment, has not educated himself or
attended any trainings about autism, and says he has
tried to read the paperwork about his children’s autism
but does not understand it. After interviewing him, Dr.
Whitney opined that the father “is NOT capable of
providing independent care for this children ‘C’, age 11,
20
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 21 of 32
‘A’, age 5, and ‘L’, age 3.” Whitney Suppl. Decl (Doc.
49) at 2.4
There are no other relatives who could take care of
the children full time. Dantzler’s parents cannot care
for the children. Her mother has lupus and other ailments
that prevent her from taking custody of the children, and
4. The government argues that the children’s father
is capable of caring for the children because the divorce
settlement agreement allows him to have custody of the
children over weekends and certain vacations. However,
as the father has never taken sole custody of the children
for a weekend or holiday, the court does not view the
agreement as significant evidence of his capability to
care for the children alone for a lengthy period of time.
Nevertheless, the court does not want to be
understood as relieving Danzler’s husband from all
responsibility for his children or sanctioning his
current conduct towards his children. The children are
his, and he is responsible for them. The record does not
reflect that he cannot still obtain training and
experience in caring for them on his own, and to make
arrangements with his employer and for school and daycare
as needed. To the extent he still does not personally
step up to help Dantzler care for them, he should still
be held accountable for arranging for someone else to
help Dantzler do so.
21
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 22 of 32
she does not understand how to care for the three children
with disabilities. Dantzler’s father is a commercial
truck driver who cannot stay home with the children. Her
parents also live in Mississippi, hours away from Alabama
where the children reside, so they are not easily
available to assist the children’s father. Dantzler’s
sister lives in Georgia and is unwilling to take the
children.
D.
In determining whether to vary from a Guidelines
sentence of 57-71 months, the court is essentially
confronted with two opposing sets of considerations.5 On
5. The Probation Department orally informed the court
that defendants typically serve about 85 % of a sentence
of a year and a day or more. Realistically, therefore,
the court believes that, absent a variance, Dantzler
would likely serve 48-to49 months, for the court would,
absent a variance, impose a bottom-of-the-Guidelines
sentence of 57 months and it is highly likely that she
would be a model prisoner, without infractions.
22
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 23 of 32
the one hand, for the reasons already given, the offenses
that Dantzler committed clearly justify a significant
period of incarceration. On the other hand, a Guidelines
sentence will significantly affect Dantzler’s children,
and, in particular, C.
As to the first set of considerations, Dantzler’s
offenses resulted, as stated, in a substantial loss to
the government and taxpayers: nearly two million dollars.
And there is also the important factor of fairness to
others who have committed fraudulent offenses of similar
enormity and with similar circumstances and who would,
in general, likely have received or would be looking at
significant sentences as well. Moreover, the law could
not be that, no matter what offense Dantzler committed
(one that involves multimillions of dollars or even a
violent one), the circumstances of her children would
always trump. She cannot live completely outside the
consequences of her actions, no matter how serious,
23
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 24 of 32
merely because of the circumstances of her children.
Indeed, § 5H1.6 provides that an important factor for the
court to consider is the “seriousness of the offense.”
There must be a point where the nature of one’s conduct
warrants incarceration of some length despite the impact
on one’s family.
Dantzler’s counsel explains that “Dantzler committed
these offenses in part to acquire income to support her
work as a stay-at-home mother taking care of her special
needs children.” This may have been the basis for
initiating her fraudulent scheme, but this reason does
not justify stealing almost two million dollars. Greed
was still a motivating factor behind her conduct.6
6. Defense counsel writes that: “Nor do high
guidelines prohibit departures to probation or accounting
for family circumstances. Undersigned counsel spoke with
Allison Bruning of the Sentencing Resource Counsel with
the Defender Services organization. Ms. Bruning examined
data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission for 2019 to
2023, for cases sentenced under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 (as in
this case), with a minimum guideline at or above 57 months
24
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 25 of 32
However, the court also concludes that a sentence
within the guideline range “would cause a substantial,
direct, and specific loss of essential caretaking” to
Dantzler's children. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 cmt. n.1(B)(i).
Dantzler is the children’s caretaker, and, particularly
as to C., she is his “person,” and lengthy withdrawal of
(as in this case). There were at least 258 cases in that
data set that received probation, or a time served
sentence. At least 90 of those cases included a reference
to ‘family circumstances’ as a basis for the court’s
decision.” This evidence, while possibly relevant, is
insufficient here. Defense counsel does not indicate how
many cases were in the universe of cases considered. It
is 328 cases out of how many cases? Is therefore only a
fraction of a percent reflected here, or only 1 % or 10 %
or 20%? Also, defense counsel does not indicate whether
these cases involved “substantial cooperation.” And,
finally, defense counsel relies on § 2B1.1, but Dantzler
was ultimately sentenced pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1,
and defense counsel does not indicate whether this makes
a difference.
Moreover, it should be noted that it would have been
much more beneficial if such sentencing data had been
presented in a manner that would have allowed the court
(and government counsel) to examine the data itself, pose
questions about the data, and have those questions
answered.
25
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 26 of 32
her care will result in serious harm to C. and quite
possibly to the other children as well.
Moreover, the loss of Dantzler’s caretaking would
“substantially exceed[] the harm ordinarily incident to
incarceration for a similarly situated defendant.”
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 cmt. n.1(B)(ii). A sentence of
incarceration within the Guidelines range likely would
do “dramatic and severe” damage to Dantzler’s oldest
child in particular. Due to his autism and intellectual
disability, the impact of his mother's incarceration on
C. would be far worse than the impact of the loss of a
parent on a child without his disabilities. An ordinary
child would experience the loss of love, care, guidance,
and support, but those things could be provided by other
adults. Children without C.’s disabilities can form
attachments to multiple adults in their lives. They can
develop close relationships with parents, siblings,
grandparents, relatives, and friends. A grandparent,
26
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 27 of 32
aunt, or foster parent can step into a parental role and
provide love, care, guidance, and support to a
non-autistic child just as well as the parent can. A
non-autistic child may be traumatized by the parent's
incarceration, but other adults can try to make up for
the loss and can be successful at doing so. Moreover,
based on the court's general knowledge, a non-autistic
child could attend widely available therapy to address
the loss of the parent. But the impact on C. of the
extended destruction of his routine and the loss of his
“person” would likely be severe and permanent, causing a
loss of learning and development that likely could not
be overcome. This is far worse than the impact on a
non-autistic child.
Moreover, Dantzler’s caretaking is “irreplaceable”
to C. U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 cmt. n.1(B)(iii). She is C.’s
“person,” and no one can replace her in that role.
Moreover, the children’s father lacks the training and
27
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 28 of 32
knowledge to provide the care C. and the other children
need, and has allowed Dantzler to carry the load of
childcare almost singlehandedly. Dantzler’s parents
cannot handle the children, and her sister is unwilling
or unable to do so.
Nevertheless, as stated, while the impact of
Dantzler’s being taken out of her children’s lives would
be “devastating,” her absence would not be devastating
no matter the extent of that absence. The extent of the
negative impact of her absence on their lives depends on
the length of that absence. Moreover, even absent
imprisonment, Dantzler would still need to be prepared
for the reasonable possibility that she will be absent,
or unavailable to her children, for an appreciable length
of time (days, weeks, or even months) due to illness or
other unavoidable and unfortunate circumstances that
attend one’s life.
28
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 29 of 32
Courts, including this one, have repeatedly
recognized that a variance may be appropriate after
weighing all circumstances, including the impact the loss
of the defendant caretaker would have on ill family
members. See, e.g., United States v. Spero, 382 F.3d
803, 804 (8th Cir. 2004) (upholding ‘departure’ to
probation based on defendant’s caretaking role in life
of child with developmental disability being
indispensable); United States v. Lehmann, 513 F.3d 805,
806 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding ‘departure’ to probation
to minimize impact of parent’s incarceration on the child
with Asperger’s disorder, ADHD, and post-traumatic stress
disorder); United States v. Gooch, No. 2:20CRcr5-MHT,
2022 WL 1747334 (M.D. Ala. May 31, 2022) (Thompson, J.)
(granting ‘variance’ downward because of impact of
Guidelines sentence on defendant’s disabled children);
United States v. Minefield, No. 2:23cr123-MHT, 2024 WL
4227045 (M.D. Ala. Sept. 18, 2024) (Thompson, J.)
29
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 30 of 32
(granting ‘variance’ downward because of impact of
Guidelines sentence on defendant’s disabled child). With
a variance, the choices for the court are not just
no-imprisonment (that is, for example, probation) versus
57-71 months. The court has the option of giving less
than 57 months. The court also has the option of weekends
in jail.
Here, the court finds that a sentence requiring no
incarceration at all would be inappropriate. As noted
earlier, Dantzler’s offense was simply too serious to
allow for a sentence of probation, and it is important
for deterrence that she serve some time in prison.
Society--and Dantzler--must understand that an offense
like hers results in jail time. Moreover, incarceration
of a parent always harms children, and some harm to the
children of defendants is a regrettable but inherent part
of incarceration. The court of course recognizes that
the potential harm to C. and Dantzler’s other children
30
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 31 of 32
would be far more severe than that ordinary level of
harm. Therefore, the court must take on the extremely
difficult task here of striking a balance between the
need for punishment and deterrence and the need to
minimize harm to C. and the other children.7
To balance the need for punishment and deterrence
with the need to minimize harm to Dantzler’s children,
the court will vary downward to the following sentence:
one month of incarceration, to be followed by three years
of supervised release. As a condition of supervised
release, Dantzler shall also serve one year of weekends
in jail. In addition, to allow her and the children’s
father to prepare for her absence, the court will
postpone the start of her month of incarceration for a
7. Indeed, sentencings are always difficult when
children are affected. But this sentencing is extremely
difficult because, as discussed earlier, the children
affected are significantly disabled.
31
Case 2:24-cr-00305-MHT-SMD Document 58 Filed 03/21/25 Page 32 of 32
period of time, with the exact amount to be determined
at the upcoming hearing. This delay will allow the
children’s father to obtain training and experience in
caring for the children on his own, and to make
arrangements with his employer and for school and daycare
as needed. In addition, Dantzler will be required to pay
$ 927,338.47, plus a special assessment of $ 200.
The court finds that the sentence outlined above is
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply
with the statutory purposes of sentencing set forth
above.
DONE, this the 21st day of March, 2025.
/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
32
File and source
- File
- 58.pdf
- Size
- 177,221 bytes
- SHA-256
- 5760c2843081947a7c96e46976ac160d0379e127b57fd1c7efb909caa3e97117
- Our copy
- 58.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.