Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Keevin Antonio Jones (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2026)
Summary
The defendant's sentencing memorandum, filed April 21, 2026 as Document 27 in United States v. Keevin Antonio Jones, Case No. 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division. It asks the court to impose a sentence of probation and argues that each factor under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) supports a variance. The memorandum relies on letters of support attached as Exhibit 1 describing the defendant's family responsibilities and community service, and cites cases such as United States v. Adelson and Gall v. United States. It argues that the collateral consequences of a felony conviction are themselves punishment and that restitution is better served by a non-incarcerated, employed defendant. It is signed /s/ Fritz Scheller, counsel for the defendant.
Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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’s Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Keevin Antonio Jones (M.D. Fla., April 21, 2026).”
Original at ecf.flmd.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/sentencing-memorandum-usa-v-jones-dkt-27-m-d-fla-d2642ab67e/
, SHA-256 3b85a84ca2b083ec3f9e1abfaaabb4ff31c3e9818221c995dfab35e96d32e184.Full text
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID 135
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. CASE NO.: 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN
KEEVIN ANTONIO JONES,
Defendant.
________________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The Defendant, Keevin Antonio Jones, respectfully submits this sentencing
memorandum for this Honorable Court’s consideration. Mr. Jones requests that
this Court impose a sentence of probation.
Introduction
It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for
the sentencing judge to consider 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.
Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996).
This memorandum establishes that Mr. Jones’s request for probation is
warranted pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Supreme Court precedent. An
examination of section 3553 demonstrates that each of its sentencing factors
supports Mr. Jones’s request for a variance. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
1
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 2 of 19 PageID 136
Furthermore, regardless of the sentencing guidelines, a sentencing court is
unencumbered in its ability “to consider 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 v. United
States, 552 U.S. 38, 53 (2007) (quoting Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81 (1996)).
To conduct an individualized assessment, the Sentencing Reform Act provides that
“[n]o limitation shall be placed on the information concerning the background,
character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the
United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate
sentence.” 18 U.S.C. § 3661. Likewise, the United States Supreme Court has stated:
There is a “long” and “durable” tradition that sentencing judges
“enjo[y] discretion in the sort of information they may consider at an
initial sentencing proceeding. This history dates back to before the
founding: Both before and since the American colonies became a
nation, courts in this country and in England practiced a policy under
which a sentencing judge could exercise a wide discretion in the
sources and types of evidence used to assist him in determining the
kind and extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by
law. Early state and English courts broadly recognized this discretion.
Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 486 (2022)(internal quotations and
citations omitted).
As contemplated by the Supreme Court, this Court’s ability to consider all
relevant information at the time of Mr. Jones’s sentencing is critical to its ability to
fashion a just sentence in his case. See Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 488
(2011) (“Permitting sentencing courts to consider the widest possible breadth of
2
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID 137
information about a defendant ensures that the punishment will suit not merely
the offense but the individual defendant”).
In calling for an expansive presentation and consideration of information at
sentencing, the § 3553(a) factors and Supreme Court precedent comprehend that
a defendant’s punishment cannot be reduced to the limited narrative presented by
an Indictment and the offense conduct section of a Presentence Report (PSR). 1
And it is also a biased narrative. The Indictment casts the Defendant as a villain
deserving of retribution. The PSR follows with a short story often distorted by its
emphasis on the defendant’s criminal conduct.
For Mr. Jones, then, justice ultimately depends on this Court’s choice -- will
it choose a limited tale of criminal conduct, or will this Court consider an existence
that lies beyond the Indictment and PSR. Choosing the Indictment’s and PSR’s
narrow constrained path of past wrongs is antagonistic to justice. It is a narrow
trail in which the sins of a defendant’s past outweigh the virtues of his future. 2
Admittedly, such a calculation is alluring since it removes the angst of making
1 In encouraging a broad consideration of information at sentencing, Supreme Court
precedent comprehends the significance of an expansive narrative in achieving just
sentencing outcomes. In doing such, the Supreme Court recognizes the paramount role
stories play in human life. Such a recognition is not surprising. Indeed, stories lie at the
heart of our evolution and identity. See, e.g., Parul Sehgal, The Tyranny of the Tale, The
New Yorker (July 3, 2023).
2But see Oscar Wilde, A Woman of No Importance (1893)(“[E]very saint has a past, and
every sinner has a future”).
3
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 4 of 19 PageID 138
individual assessments concerning a defendant. 3 While this calculation is
seductive in its simplicity, it is alarming in its effect. To be sure, simple narratives
are often false ones (“Stop the Steal;” “The War on Drugs;” “Crack Babies;” and
“Equal Protection under the Law”).
As the following section demonstrates, Mr. Jones’ criminal actions were a
lamentable episode in an otherwise exemplary life.
Chapter 1
Nature of the Offense and History and Characteristics of the
Defendant
But, surely, if ever a man is to receive credit for the good he has done,
and his immediate misconduct assessed in the context of his overall
life hitherto, it should be at the moment of his sentencing, when his
very future hangs in the balance. This elementary principle of
weighing the good with the bad, which is basic to all the great
religions, moral philosophies, and systems of justice, was plainly part
of what Congress had in mind when it directed courts to consider, as
a necessary sentencing factor, ‘the history and characteristics’ of the
defendant.
United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 506, 513-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)
As the Letters of Support demonstrate, Mr. Jones appreciates the
seriousness of his conduct and is remorseful for his criminal actions. See Letters of
Support, attached hereto as Exhibit 1. As Aubrey Perry states:
3 A sole reliance on Mr. Jones’ offense conduct reflects a human aversion to the
uncertainty and ambiguity attached predicting a man’s unknowable future. See, e.g,
Maria Konnikova, Why We Need Answers, The New Yorker (Apr. 30, 2013). As Konnika
asserts, studies demonstrate that the need to respond to uncertainty or a lack of clarity is
present in the early stages of human development. Id. Because of our distress with the
unknown and uncertain, we seek to achieve “cognitive closure” defined as the “desire for
a firm answer to a question and an aversion to ambiguity.” Id. (citation omitted).
4
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 5 of 19 PageID 139
I understand the difficulties Keevin now faces, and I fully understand
they are of his own making. But nobody understands that more than
Keevin. Every time I have seen or spoken to him since, he has
personally apologized to me.
Ex. 1, Letter of Aubrey Perry
Despite his criminal conduct, section 3553(a) is not limited to a defendant’s
criminal conduct. The significance of the first § 3553 factor is its comprehension
that a consideration of a defendant’s criminal conduct cannot disregard the life he
has led beyond his crime. See Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d at 513-14. This tenet has
resonance in the instant case. For the weighing of the good with the bad in Mr.
Jones’s life reveals that his criminal conduct should not provide the sole basis for
judging his fate. Rather, Mr. Jones’s history and characteristics show that he
embodies the best in humanity – dedication to his family and compassion for
others. See Ex. 1. As Marchae Lee writes: “Based on my long-standing relationship
with Keevin, I can confidently say that his character is defined by compassion,
accountability, service to others, and a sincere desire to positively impact both his
family and his community.” Id., Letter of Marchae Lee.
Dedication to his Family
Mr. Jones is not only a dedicated husband, but also a committed and loving
father to his two young daughters. See id. Sylvia Martin Leath writes:
As the father of one infant and a toddler, Keevin embraces his role
with patience, love, and responsibility. He is actively involved in every
aspect of his children’s lives from late night feedings and diaper
changes to playtime, bedtime stories, and teaching important values
5
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 6 of 19 PageID 140
through his actions. Even with the hardship and circumstance of his
current case, he continues to prioritize their well-being above all else
and works hard to ensure they grow up in a stable, nurturing, and
loving environment.
Id., Letter of Sylvia Martin-Leath. Similarly, Mr. Jones’ partner states:
He is a man of integrity, strong work ethic, and deep responsibility —
not only to me, but to our two daughters.
From the beginning of our relationship, Keevin has consistently
demonstrated commitment and devotion to our family.
Ex. 1, Letter of Shuntavia Wilson.
In determining Mr. Jones’s sentence, this Court may consider that he is an
excellent husband and father to his daughters. See e.g., United States v. Pauley,
511 F.3d 468 (4th Cir. 2007) (affirming 42-month sentence for defendant
convicted of possession of child pornography with an advisory guideline range of
78-97 months in part because “besides the criminal conduct at issue, Pauley was
a . . . good father”).
Mr. Jones’ dedication extends beyond his immediate family. See id. “His
commitment to his loved ones is the central focus of his life, and he works hard to
be a positive, stabilizing presence for them. Id., Letter of Jadarius Larkin; see also
Letter of Trinity Leath (describing Mr. Jones’s critical support after the passing of
her grandfather and his commitment to family).
Mr. Jones’ commitment to his family is reflected in his care for his
grandmother who suffers from dementia. Id., Letter of Shonda Martin (“Keevin
6
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 7 of 19 PageID 141
also helps care for his sickly grandmother when needed without hesitation.”);
Letter of Byron Morrison)(“[Keeven Jones] has been a steady source of support to
his mother as she provides care for his grandmother”). See also Letter of De’Leah
Leath (noting the time he spends with their grandmother at family gatherings).
Compassion for Others
Mr. Jones’s dedication to his family parallels his commitment to others. Ex.
1, Letter of Jadarius Larkin (“He is someone with a remarkable caring heart who
has consistently shown kindness to those around him”); Letter of Natalie LeBlanc
(“He is kind, generous, and the type of person who would truly give you the shirt
off his back if you needed it”). Notably, Mr. Jones has demonstrated such
compassion 4 throughout his life.
As a teenager and throughout his adulthood, Keevin would always
stop and give food and money to the homeless that seemed to be in
need. Keevin would donate his old tennis shoes to under privileged
teens in our neighborhood and advising them not to get into
4
Regarding the significance of compassion to human existence, the Dalai Lama XIV has
concluded:
We can reject everything else: religion, ideology, all received wisdom. But
we cannot escape the necessity of love and compassion....
This, then, is my true religion, my simple faith. In this sense, there is no
need for temple or church, for mosque or synagogue, no need for
complicated philosophy, doctrine or dogma. Our own heart, our own mind,
is the temple. The doctrine is compassion. Love for others and respect for
their rights and dignity, no matter who or what they are: ultimately these
are all we need. So long as we practice these in our daily lives, then no matter
if we are learned or unlearned, whether we believe in Buddha or God, or
follow some other religion or none at all, as long as we have compassion for
others and conduct ourselves with restraint out of a sense of responsibility,
there is no doubt we will be happy.
7
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 8 of 19 PageID 142
trouble . . . It has always brought joy to Keevin just knowing he could
make a difference to others.
Ex.1, Letter of Shonda Martin.
Mr. Jones’ passion for helping others is demonstrated by his commitment to
his community including his work with the homeless, at-risk youth and the less
fortunate. Id. Letter of Robert E. Jones III (depicting Mr. Jones’ work with young
people in Winter Garden and Orlando, Florid0) Letter of Marchae Lee (stating that
Mr. Jones has organized back-pack drives for children in need and has assisted in
feeding the homeless). Likewise, after portraying Mr. Jones’ significant support for
her during college, Dr. Najah Bilal writes: “He’s active in his church, participates
in community service events like helping to feed the homeless and less fortunate
and back to school supply drives for underprivileged children.” Id., Letter of Dr.
Najah Bilal.
In addition to Adelson, other cases support the proposition that a defendant’s
history of charitable deeds and good works supports a variance. See, e.g., United
States v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 569-71 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (where defendant
was convicted of tax evasion of $225,000 and faced a guidelines sentence of 12-18
months, district court’s sentence to probation on condition of one year home
detention was not unreasonable because of his “negligible criminal history, his
employment record, his community ties, and his extensive charitable works”);
United States v. Thurston, 544 F.3d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 2008) (where defendant was
convicted of fraud in excess of five million dollars and guidelines capped at 60
8
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 9 of 19 PageID 143
months, district court’s sentence of 3-months was affirmed based on defendant’s
“charitable work, community service, generosity with time, and spiritual support
and assistance to others”); see also United States v. Cooper, 394 F.3d 172 (3rd Cir.
2005) (similar).
A consistent theme in Mr. Jones’s life is his strong sense of commitment to
others. The Letters of Support describe an individual who has led an exemplary life
– a life marked by his commitment to his family and his community. Thus, if
Adelson’s admonition that a court should consider a defendant’s overall existence
in imposing his sentence, then the totality of Mr. Jones’s existence and the man he
has proven to be calls for mercy.
Chapter 2
Just Punishment
All in all, punishment hardens and renders people more insensible;
it concentrates; it increases the feeling of estrangement; it
strengthens the power of resistance.
Friedrich Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals, essay 2, aph. 14 (1887)
In imposing a just sentence, this Court should consider the significant
punishment resulting from the indirect consequences of Mr. Jones’s felony
conviction. Prior to the instant offense, Mr. Jones had no criminal felony record.
Now, based on his felony conviction, Mr. Jones will face an overwhelming number
of consequences. A congressional report authored by the United States
Government Accountability Office (GAO) demonstrates that there are 641
9
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 10 of 19 PageID 144
collateral consequences of a nonviolent felony conviction. See GAO Report 17-691,
NONVIOLENT DRUG CONVICTIONS, Stakeholders Views on Potential, Actions
to Address Collateral Consequences, (Sept. 2017), summary excerpt attached
hereto as Exhibit 2. Of these 641 collateral consequences, 497 (78%) of them may
last a lifetime. See id. Notably, Mr. Jones has also experienced the devastating
punishment rendered by the collateral consequences of his conviction since he has
lost his career in law enforcement.
In addition to the other collateral consequences of his conviction, Mr.
Jones’s felony conviction will have a significant impact on his future job prospects
based on his race. See Devah Pacer et al, Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to
Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records, Annual.
Am. Acad. Pol. Soc. Sci. 623(1): 195–213 (May 2009)(“find[ing] a significant
negative effect of a criminal record on employment outcomes that appears
substantially larger for African Americans”); available at
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3583356/.
Recognizing the effect of collateral consequences of a felony conviction, one
court has emphasized the need for federal judges to account for such an impact at
sentencing. United States v. Nesbeth, Case No. 1:15-cr-00018, 2016 WL 3022073,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y May 24, 2016)(Block, J.)(varying downward from guideline range
of 33 to 44 months imprisonment to one-year of probation for a drug defendant
based in part on the number of statutory and regulatory consequences he faced as
10
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 11 of 19 PageID 145
a convicted felon). As Nesbeth establishes, the civil death that Mr. Jones faces due
to his conviction constitutes significant punishment. See also Michelle Alexander,
The New Jim Crow (2010); Wayne A. Logan, Informal Collateral Consequences,
88 Washington Law Review 1103 (2013)(“Today, convict status serves as a
perpetual badge of infamy, even serving to impugn reputation beyond the grave”). 5
Finally, Mr. Jones is haunted by remorse. See Ex. 1, Letter of Aubrey Perry.
While his miserable state results from his own actions, a consideration of Mr.
Jones’s condition is also important in terms of the punishment he has received for
his crime. See United States v. Prosperi, 686 F.3d 32, 47-48 (1st Cir. 2012)(citing
the district court’s observation that “sometimes [courts do not] fully recognize the
anguish and the penalty and the burden that persons face when called to account,
as these men are, for the wrong that they committed”).
Chapter 3
Deterrence
No punishment has ever possessed enough power of deterrence to
prevent the commission of crimes.
Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, Epilogue (1963)
The preceding established the proposition that a lengthy prison sentence is
not necessary to accomplish the goal of just sentencing. In turn, this section
5 Notably, other probation offices, including the probation office in the Eastern District of
New York, list the impact of collateral consequences as a ground for a variance in their
PSRs.
11
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID 146
addresses the question of whether a long prison sentence will accomplish the §
3553 factor of deterrence. Such an examination requires an analysis of both general
and specific deterrence.
1. General Deterrence
The principle of general deterrence is based on the unsupported premise
that lengthy prison sentences deter crime. This faulty conception has resulted in
the mass incarceration of individuals in the United States.
For the past 40 years, the United States has been engaged in a vast,
costly social experiment. It has incarcerated a higher percentage of its
people, and for a longer period, than any other democracy. In fact,
with 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. is home to 25
percent of its prisoners.
Dr. Oliver Roeder et al., What Caused the Crime Decline?, Brennan Center for
Just., 22-23 (Feb. 12, 2015), available at https://www.brennancenter.
org/publication/what-caused-crime-decline.
The condition of mass incarceration is especially troubling since there is no
correlation between punishment and reductions in crime. See id; see also Gary
Kleck and J.C. Barnes, Deterrence and Macro-Level Perceptions of Punishment
Risks: Is There a “Collective Wisdom”?, 59 Crime & Delinquency 1006, 1031-33
(2013). The United States Department of Justice agrees with the conclusion that
incarcerating defendants is not an effective means of deterrence. See U.S. Dept. of
Justice, Nat’l Inst. of Justice, Five Things About Deterrence (July 2014), attached
hereto as Exhibit 3. In fact, the Department of Justice finds that even increasing
12
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 13 of 19 PageID 147
the severity of punishment does little to deter punishment. See id.
2. Specific Deterrence
Having established that prison sentences, regardless of length, have no
impact on general deterrence, this section demonstrates that the factor of specific
deterrence also supports Mr. Jones’s request for a variance. The first part of this
section focuses on studies establishing that incarceration has no effect on
recidivism. The second part asserts that Mr. Jones’ history and characteristics
prove that he will never commit another crime.
a. The relationship between incarceration and recidivism
As in the case of general deterrence, empirical evidence does not establish
a relationship between sentence length and specific deterrence, regardless of the
type of crime. See Nat’l Instit. of Corrections, Myths and Facts, Why Incarceration
is Not the Best Way to Keep Communities Safe (2016), attached hereto as Exhibit
4. The 2016 study conducted by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC)
establishes three critical tenets regarding incarceration and specific deterrence.
First, incarceration has a negligible impact on crime prevention. See Ex. 4 at 4; see
also Vera Instit. of Justice, Overview of The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration
Will Not Make Us Safer (July 2017)(concluding that research shows a “weak
relationship between incarceration and crime reduction, and highlights proven
strategies for improving public safety that are more effective and less expensive
13
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 14 of 19 PageID 148
than incarceration”). 6 Instead, a longer prison sentence may actually lead to a
greater risk of recidivism. See id.
Moreover, harsh penalties do not improve the long-term outcomes of the
offender. Ex. 4 at 4. Longstanding research has found that imprisonment brings
about negative individual-level changes that can harm re-integration upon release.
National Research Council. The Growth of Incarceration in the United States:
Exploring Causes and Consequences, (Nat’l Acad. Press 2014), available at
https://doi.org/10.17226/1861.
Finally, the 2016 study concludes that community correction programs are
more effective than incarceration in reducing recidivism. Ex. 4 at 5. See also R. S.
Frase et al., Criminal History Enhancements Sourcebook (2015)(discussing
studies establishing the crime that “custody is associated with higher rates of re-
offending than community sentences”). Thus, the most effective to promote public
safety is through broad use of non-incarceration sentences, especially since
“incarceration does little to change a person’s behavior” and persons sentenced to
prison have higher recidivism rates than those sentenced to community
corrections. Ex. 4 at 1, 4.
b. Mr. Jones’s low risk of recidivism
6
The United States Sentencing Commission has determined that "[t]here is no correlation
between recidivism and guidelines' offense level. . . While surprising at first glance, this
finding should be expected. The guidelines' offense level is not intended or designed to
predict recidivism." See U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal
History Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, at 15 (May 2004).
14
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 15 of 19 PageID 149
Mr. Jones has no criminal record, is college educated, has been employed
throughout his life, is married, and does not have a substance abuse problem.
Based on these factors, Mr. Jones poses an extremely low risk of recidivism. See
U.S. Sent. Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation
of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines at 12-13 (May 2004).
In imposing the least sufficient sentence to account for the need to protect
the public from further crimes of Mr. Jones, this Court should consider the
statistically low risk of recidivism presented by him. United States v. Urbina, slip
op., 2009 WL 565485, *2-3 (E.D. Wis. Mar. 5, 2009) (considering low risk of
recidivism indicated by defendant’s lack of criminal record, positive work history,
and strong family ties).
Chapter 4
Educational, Medical Care, or Other Correctional treatment
Judges carry the heavy burden of depriving individuals of their
liberty. But the Bureau of Prisons shoulders the constitutional
burden of protecting the remaining rights of the incarcerated while
in custody.
United States v. Bardell, 634 F.Supp.3d 1083, 1084 (M.D. Fla. 2022).
Based on his education, lack of substance abuse, and employment history,
Mr. Jones would not benefit from any educational, vocational or treatment
programs in the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).
Chapter 5
The Advisory Guidelines and the Kind of Sentences Available
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. After some years, it can
15
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 16 of 19 PageID 150
boast of a long series of successes.
Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach, Aphorisms (1880)
The Presentence Report (PSR) calculates Mr. Jones’s total offense level as a
level 11 with a criminal history category of I. 7 PSR at ¶ 63. Thus, Mr. Jones faces an
advisory guideline imprisonment range of eight to 14 months. Id. at ¶ 63. Notably,
Mr. Jones’ advisory guideline range falls within Zone B of the Sentencing Table.
Based on Mr. Jones’ placement in zone B, the guidelines advise that this Court may
sentence him to a term of probation which includes a condition of house arrest or
community confinement. See USSG §5B1.1(a)(2).
Ordinarily, the undersigned would engage in an exhaustive, for some
perhaps, a tedious critique of the sentencing guidelines. But because the guidelines
support a probationary sentence in Mr. Jones’ case, they have proven to be
surprisingly rational.
In addition to the guidelines’ support for Mr. Jones’ requested sentence, the
federal sentencing statutes also allow a probationary sentence. Indeed, a
mandatory minimum sentence does not apply in Mr. Jones’ case. Moreover, the
statutes do not require a mandatory prison sentence since Mr. Jones has been
convicted of a Class C felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(1). The federal statutes not
only allow but also encourage a probationary sentence for Mr. Jones. See, e.g., 28
U.S.C. § 994(j) (Congress stressed "the general appropriateness of imposing a
7 There are no objections to this guideline calculation.
16
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 17 of 19 PageID 151
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.”).
Chapter 6
Disparity
In imposing a sentence, the Court must consider “the need to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar
records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and”
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6)
Regarding the goal of avoiding disparity in the sentences of defendants, this
factor strongly supports Mr. Jones’ request for variance. To be sure, statistics from
the United States Sentencing Commission demonstrate that for fraud defendants,
like Mr. Jones, who are eligible for non-prison sentences, incarceration was not
imposed in 81.0% of such cases in the Middle District of Florida in fiscal year 2024.
See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, 2024 Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics, tbl.6,
attached hereto as Exhibit 5.
Based on the statistics demonstrating the consistent imposition of non-
prison sentences in fraud cases in the Middle District of Florida, Mr. Jones submits
that his requested sentence of probation, which marks a minor variance from the
guidelines in Zone B, is necessary to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities.
Chapter 7
Restitution
In imposing a sentence, the Court must consider “the need to provide
restitution to any victims of the offense.”
17
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 18 of 19 PageID 152
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7)
If Mr. Jones is incarcerated, his ability to pay restitution will be severely
impacted. Conversely, a non-prison sentence will allow him to make restitution.
See 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(7). Thus, this § 3553 factor supports the imposition of a
probationary sentence. See United States v. Rangel, 697 F.3d 795, 803-04 (9th Cir.
2012)(“the district court's goal of obtaining restitution for the victims of
Defendant's offense is better served by a non-incarcerated and employed
defendant”)(citation omitted).
CONCLUSION
After the rhetorical niceties and the endless citations, the fundamental
question in Mr. Jones’ case is whether justice will be accomplished with a sentence
of imprisonment. Answering this question is an elusive task. But not an impossible
one considering the unique circumstances of Mr. Jones’ case – the circumstances
that mitigate his crime and punishment.
Behind the limited and misleading narrative of an Indictment and PSR,
there exists an entire life and history that transcends a rigid sentencing matrix.
While the Indictment and PSR can only convey a limited narrative of criminal
transgression, Mr. Jones’ life is so much more. His life is a story of love and
commitment.
In a life full of both failure and triumph, Mr. Jones’ crime, an aberrant
18
Case 6:26-cr-00008-JA-RMN Document 27 Filed 04/21/26 Page 19 of 19 PageID 153
episode in an otherwise exemplary existence, ensures that his future has been
irrevocably damaged. Because such a harsh result is unavoidable, a probationary
sentence is the only just result.
/s/ Fritz Scheller
Fritz Scheller
Florida Bar Number 183113
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of
Court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to
all counsel in this case on April 21, 2026.
/s/ Fritz Scheller
Fritz Scheller
Florida Bar Number 183113
Fritz Scheller, P.L.
200 East Robinson Street, Suite 1150
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone 407-792-1285
Facsimile 407-649-1657
Email: fscheller@flusalaw.com
19
File and source
- File
- 27-sentencing-memorandum-by-keevin-antonio-jones.pdf
- Size
- 262,331 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3b85a84ca2b083ec3f9e1abfaaabb4ff31c3e9818221c995dfab35e96d32e184
- Original
- PACER (login required)