Order — No. 2:22-cr-00239 (Dkt. 31, E.D. Cal.)

Summary

An order in United States v. Eric Michael Jaklitsch, Nos. 2:22-cr-15 WBS and 2:22-cr-239 WBS, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, filed June 18, 2024 as Document 31 in No. 2:22-cr-239 (3 pages) and dated June 17, 2024. It denies the defendant's motions to reduce his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821, noting that the government agrees he is technically eligible for the zero-point provision but urges the court not to exercise its discretion. The court states that it declines to reduce the sentence, citing the short time since sentencing and two separate fraud schemes that resulted in $3.4 million in losses to the California Employment Development Department and $777,000 in losses to the Small Business Administration.

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

Full text

      Case 2:22-cr-00239-WBS Document 31 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 3


 1

 2

 3

 4

 5

 6

 7

 8                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 9                      EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
                                  ----oo0oo----
11

12   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,               No. 2:22-cr-15 WBS
13                Plaintiff,
14        v.
15   ERIC MICHAEL JAKLITSCH,                 ORDER
16                Defendant.
17

18   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

19                Plaintiff,                 No. 2:22-cr-239 WBS
20        v.

21   ERIC MICHAEL JAKLITSCH,

22                Defendant.

23

24                                ----oo0oo----

25             On May 22, 2023, defendant was sentenced to a total

26   term of 81 months’ imprisonment in Case No. 2:22-cr-15 WBS and

27   Case No. 2:22-cr-239 WBS.     Defendant, through retained counsel,

28   has filed identical motions to reduce his sentence under 18
                                         1
      Case 2:22-cr-00239-WBS Document 31 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 3


 1   U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 in both cases.         (Docket No.

 2   63 in Case No. 2:22-cr-15 WBS; Docket No. 27 in Case No. 2:22-cr-

 3   239 WBS.)

 4               The government agrees that defendant is technically
 5   eligible for a retroactive application of the zero-point
 6   provision, although the court notes that defendant appears to be
 7   technically eligible for the reduction only because his case
 8   involving a separate fraudulent scheme in the District of New

 9   Jersey was transferred to this district and he was subsequently

10   sentenced in both cases on the same day.       Nevertheless, the

11   government argues that the court should decline to exercise its

12   discretion to reduce defendant’s sentence.        (Docket No. 63 in

13   Case No. 2:22-cr-15 WBS; Docket No. 27 in Case No. 2:22-cr-239
14   WBS.)
15               For the reasons set forth at pages 5-7 of the

16   government’s opposition to the motions, the court declines to

17   exercise its discretion to reduce defendant’s sentence at this

18   time.   As an initial matter, the court notes that it has been

19   only a little over a year since defendant was sentenced, and thus
20   defendant’s history of no violations while incarcerated only
21   slightly weighs in favor of a reduction.       Defendant also points
22   to the mitigating factors discussed at sentencing, such as his

23   acceptance of responsibility by pleading guilty, lack of prior

24   criminal history, drug use which helped cause his criminal

25   conduct, and work with youth as a basketball coach.         However,

26   the court took all of these factors in account at sentencing, and
27   they do not warrant a reduction in sentence now.
28               Most importantly, defendant was involved in two
                                         2
      Case 2:22-cr-00239-WBS Document 31 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 3


 1   separate fraud schemes which resulted in $3.4 million in losses

 2   to the California Employment Development Department and $777,000

 3   in losses to the United States Small Business Administration and

 4   the identity theft of over 180 victims.       Defendant has never

 5   cooperated with law enforcement to identify his co-conspirators
 6   or locate any of the stolen funds.      Defendant has also not paid
 7   any of the restitution he owes.      Given the seriousness of these
 8   crimes and all the relevant factors, the court finds a reduction

 9   in sentence is not appropriate.

10              IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motions

11   (Docket No. 63 in Case No. 2:22-cr-15 WBS; Docket No. 27 in Case

12   No. 2:22-cr-239 WBS) be, and the same hereby are, DENIED.

13   Dated:   June 17, 2024

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21

22

23

24

25

26
27

28
                                         3


File and source

File

31.pdf

Size

85,295 bytes

SHA-256

e2e4266790483751babc793b37b0670ce9fe87d69acd3cb926b56dbc22e1a22c

Our copy

31.pdf

Original

No public link identified.