NASSI Joshua Sentencing Memo

7/29/2019 NASSI Joshua Sentencing Memo

1/69

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

___________________________________________

:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ::

vs. : CRIMINAL ACT

: 3:12CR00157 (JB

:

JOSHUA NASSI : September 9, 201:

DEFENDANTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Joshua Nassi concedes, as he must, that he has no one but himself

conduct that causes him to be before the Court. His conduct was wrong, it

and it was (in very large part) inexplicable given his years of trusted and tru

and community service. Even taking into account the substantial certainty

reoffend in the future, and the potentially severe collateral impacts of this c

Nassi cannot deny that this is perhaps the relatively unusual case in which

general deterrence carries substantial weight in the sentencing decision. W

defendant respectfully requests that the Court carefully consider all the evi

and aggravatingin fashioning an appropriate sentence. Defendant submi

Case 3:12-cr-00157-JBA Document 350 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 o


2/69

Governing Principles

A sentencing court should start by considering as a lodestar the pa

18 U.S.C. 3553(a), which directs sentencing courts to impose a sentence

greater than necessary to comply with the factors set out in 18 U.S.C. 35

States v. Douglas, 713 F.3d 694, 700 (2d Cir. 2013) (citing United States v

174, 183 (2d Cir. 2010)). Those factors are, broadly speaking, proportion

incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Douglas, 713 F.3d at 700. Wide latitu

sentencing courts in crafting sentences sufficient,but not greater than nece

the sentencing objectives set forth by Congress. United States v. Stewart,

(2d Cir. 2012); see 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B) ("[The district court] sha

need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to p

the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense [and] afford adequa

criminal conduct."). And [n]o limitation [is permitted] on the informatio

background, character, and conduct of a person convicted of an offense wh

United States may receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an app

sentence. Stewart, 686 F.3d at 173;see alsoPepper v. United States, 13

(2011) (sentencing judges exercise a wide discretion in the types of evid

consider when imposing sentence and that [h]ighly relevant--if not essenti

selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest informa



3/69

In some cases it may be more obvious than others what sentence m

insufficient, or greater than necessary. This is an unusual case in very

shallowest layer, the case involves illegal activity from a person from whom

more, and in an area which presents undisputed societal importance. But f

view of individualized sentencing, there is much to counsel against a harsh

much in favor of mitigation.

UnderUnited States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and United S

397 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir. 2005), the factors set forth in 3553(a), includi

States Sentencing Guidelines, must each be considered by the Court. But o

have been determined, a district judge may hear arguments by prosecution

Guidelines sentence should not apply, perhaps because (as the Guidelines t

the case at hand falls outside the heartland to which the Commission inte

Guidelines to apply, USSG 5K2.0, perhaps because the Guidelines senten

properly to reflect 3553(a) considerations, or perhaps because the case w

sentence regardless. See Rule 32(f). Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 245

UnderBooker, [s]ection 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth numerou

sentencing. Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 766. [A] judge is not prohibited from

consideration [of the factors in 3553(a)] the judges own sense of what is

sentence under all the circumstances That is the historic role of sentencing



4/69

if doing so would be reasonable, lower the sentence below the Guideline ra

downward departure is unavailable. United States v. Brady, 417 F.3d 326

2005). Section 3553(a)s factors, properly applied, weigh in favor of a me

modest sentence than suggested by the government.

Starting with a general review of the applicable broad principles to

sentencing outlined inDouglas, 713 F.3d at 700, proportionality, deterren

and rehabilitation, it seems clear that the latter two have little, if any appli

the other hand, the first two likely carry greater weight in this case than in m

that have come in front of the Court.

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the hischaracteristics of the defendant.

Defendant addresses the nature and circumstances of the offense w

trepidation, because of its complexity, the different versions of the offense

participants (and others), and the fact that relatively fine details likely do n

the sentencing decision. At the outset, defendant wants to be clear what he

suggest and what he is not trying to suggest. He is nottrying to minimize t

the offense. He is nottrying to minimize his own role in the offense. But

the Court will carefully consider what he did, and what he did not do, to fu

At the outset, and before anything else is considered, Nassi wishes



5/69

and he knows the severity of his misconduct. This is no small matter in m

case, it is arguably one of the most important factors to consider because th

widely felt.

"The values served by remorse and apology should be more integra

process of prosecution and punishment. For the criminal law to regulate so

and morally educate, it must serve the values of remorse and apology in ad

crimes, inflicting retribution, and protecting defendants' rights." Bibas & B

Integrating Remorse and Apology into Criminal Procedure, 114 Yale L.J.

United States v. Stewart (Stewart II), 686 F.3d 156, 173-74 (2d Cir. 2012)

determining risk of recidivism, among other issues);see also Rachlinski, C

Courtroom: Do Apologies Affect Adjudication?, 98 Cornell L. Rev. 1189,

apology can help restore a victim's sense of status and control. Because an

acceptance of responsibility, offering a sincere apology can constitute an im

for an offender as well.); United States v. Landeros-Lopez, 615 F.3d 1260

Cir. 2010) ("We note that there are additional benefits to defendant allocut

defendant an opportunity to apologize and express remorse. . . ."); cf.Unite

918 F.2d 843, 848 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming imposition of a public apolog

supervised release because "the record supports the conclusion that the jud

requirement of a public apology for rehabilitation") overruled on other gro



6/69

The extreme remorse described by the PSR, if anything, substant

defendantsprofound, immediate, and lasting regret for what he did and wh

This is, to be sure, in some part due to what it has and will cost him person

for a period of time, several close personal relationships, his career in gove

politics, and likely his ability to practice law for some time. In this respect

that the current prosecution has been lifechanging. PSR 125.

More importantly, his extreme remorse is due to how he affected

others have been affected, perhaps permanently. Countless hours were spe

and prosecuting events that should never have occurred.

But by far most significantly, he unfairly and unnecessarily allowed

in government to be undermined. These impacts were simply unimaginabl

2012, but he should have been more aware of the inevitable impact of the o

not it was discovered by authorities. Trust in government is vital to the fun

state. It is been repeatedly corroded by many recent publicized offenses, n

were the recent incarceration of a governor, a state senator, and mayors of

cities. And now this. The people of the State of Connecticut deserve hone

1Several of the letters submitted to the Court make this point as well. He remorseful to the point of sadness that affects his spirit and pride. (letter fMilbury). I personally know how remorseful he is about his misjudgmentAlberto Oceguera). Joshua told me that he wished he could go back in tim



7/69

They are entitled to know that whatever else campaign contributions may l

not lead to conclusions that votes are for sale.

This is particularly shameful to Nassi in that he devoted his entire a

for open government, campaign finance reform, and economic justice. As t

an indifferent high school experience, he found a positive role in social jus

His entire life after graduating from law school revolved around work, P

[f]rom all accounts, Mr. Nassi could be described as an intelligent and mo

looking to make a difference for citizens throughout the political arena. P

what he did here was wrong. His actions affected and continue to affect pe

the individuals in this case. For all of this, as the PSR notes, he is deeply s

Perhaps a central question to be considered on this issue is why?

history of very honorable work in government and politics, with increasing

and respected, successful performance. He has been involved in dozens of

campaigns with varying levels of responsibility from the time he was in co

fifteen years; he has never been accused or even suspected of any state or f

law violations. He has never been accused of any ethical impropriety as a

not even a hint of misconduct of any kind during his eight years of work at

Assembly. Yet when he walked outside the lines in this campaign, he did

We will try to answer this question but would like to emphasize th



8/69

The clearest answer to this question has several components. First,

intense pressure as Donovans campaign directorpressure of a kind and t

had never experienced. He was 33 years old at the time. This was the first

he had anywhere near this level of responsibility. The race for the 5th Cong

in the first half of 2012 was closer than he had anticipated, and was one of

races in the country. Truthfully, he probably was not ready to serve in this

had very substantial experience in state races, his experience in federal race

This is particularly material since fundraising has almost no importance in

public financing of statewide and General Assembly elections; a State Sen

raise only $15,000 to qualify for public financing. On the other hand, in co

Congressional races fundraising may be of very significant importance; spe

successful candidate for the Congressional seat at issue in this case was ov

Nassi had no experience trying to raise anything close to these amounts.

His lack of experience is also apparent in his decision to hire Bradd

director. Braddock had no connection to Connecticut, to political activists

fundraising sources in Connecticut, or to anyone working closely on the ca

was hired because, in short, he was available, he had experience, and Nassi

better.



9/69

Further, when he left his job at the General Assembly and agreed to

campaign director, his general sense was that Donovan was likely to obtain

nomination reasonably easily given his lengthy service in the General Asse

support among registered Democrats and likely primary voters. Nassi had

wrongly, that the real contest would be the general election in November.

for a variety of reasons including Donovans quixotic fight for an increase

wage in 2012 which many fellow Democrats opposed (including the presid

Senate and the Governor), and his inability to spend much time on the cam

the legislative session, by the time of the events in question Donovans nom

from a foregone conclusion. His two opponents were proving to be very v

who presented credible alternatives to Donovan. Some thought Donovan w

be elected in the extremely diverse Congressional district in November aga

perceived as relatively moderate.

Accordingly, by April and May 2012, Nassi was at real risk of havi

Congressional campaign fail spectacularly, at or even well before the Nove

despite the many advantages that had taken years to create. He quit the hig

ever had at the General Assembly to run the campaign, and he faced being

successful. In effect, his career in politics might have been over very short

losing a race that no one thought could be lost The pressure on him was in



10/69

nominating convention, then from people who might vote at a primary. Th

like Soucy who were viewed as representatives of larger blocks of voters (i

correctional officers). Representatives of larger groups of voters often hav

candidates, particularly at the nomination or primary stage of an election.

Nassi made decisions that he would not have otherwise made due t

readiness for the job, the pressure to make the campaign successful after a

desire not to offendor to say no to a representative of a large group o

(particularly around the time of the nominating convention), and, of course

raise money (particularly around the time of the reporting deadlines). He m

decisions. The desire not to fail and to not hurt the campaign in fact had a

publicly adverse effect on the campaign leading directly to its failure. A h

conversations, and a series of bad decisions, had undone what it had taken

to build up.

The Court is quite aware of the evidence offered at the trial of a co-

Nassi has submitted to the Probation Office a lengthy version of the offens

to recount his recollection of events. He was also interviewed by authoritie

hours when he was first confronted (without invoking his right to counsel)

defendants in this case was charged with conspiracy to file false statements

Election Commission (FEC) Some faced additional charges After a tri

Case 3:12-cr-00157-JBA Document 350 Filed 09/09/13 Page 10


11/69

participants in the conspiracy apparently subjectively believedthat the goa

was to make political contributions in exchange for legislative action,3 and

true that Nassi made statements to Soucy that were consistent with an over

legislation as part of a fundraising scheme.

However, to the extent that this is relevant under 3553(a), the rec

does not appear to have answered clearly at the present time whether the bi

actually was affected in the General Assemblys regular 2012 session by im

contributions to the Donovan campaign. (Perhaps this is why Nassi was no

3The relation of legislative action in exchange for lawful campaign contribparticularly thorny; perhaps that is why bribery cases relating to campaign opposed to conduit contribution cases) are so rare. As Nassi noted in his voffense, at page 3, [c]ampaign contributors almost always had an interest issue. . . .People do not contribute to the campaigns of candidates who opp

important to them. This is hardly a novel observation; yet campaign contto support a candidate even with the express expectation that the candidateparticular way are not improper. A recent article in The New York Times relationship between campaign contributions and implied or explicit promiaction. Editorial, The Cash Committee, The New York Times (Aug. 17, 20others regulated by House Financial Services Committee have contributed its members this year); Lipton,For Freshmen in the House, Seats of PlentyTimes (Aug. 10, 2013) (according to banking lobbyist, contributions are a

investing in a first round draft pick for the N.B.A. or N.F.L.There is potemake an investment, and we are hopeful that investment produces a return.

This issue led Connecticut to adopt meaningful campaign finance roffices effective in 2008, the Citizens Election Programa system of publfinancing that is intended to reduce the influence of campaign contributionand governmental process. Conn. Gen. Stat. 9-7009-751. That refor



12/69

more serious offenses, and why no one else has been charged.) One fact th

that the bill was not called for a vote in the Senate, which would have been

have been considered in the House. There is no clear suggestion that Nass

do with that decision, directly or indirectly; the evidence is that he did not e

was being considered for a vote in the Senate until shortly before it was sch

the vote did not take place). Apparently there was uniform opposition to th

members of one party (who could talk it to death, according to one comm

Others opposed it because it was introduced late, after the time for public h

would vote against it because legislators did not wish to vote for a tax incre

an election year, and some would vote against it because of antipathy towa

General. Because of all those concerns, often in the ordinary course a bill

not be voted on in the regular session of the General Assembly, but it woul

post-session budget implementer bill where it would not be voted on sep

legislator who felt compelled to vote for the entire budget would not have t

for a tax increase. In any event, there is substantial evidence that by the tim

confronted by agents on May 25, 2012, legislative leaders had already reac

agreement to pass in the special or budget implementer session starting J

to tax the RYO shops as manufacturers, but to delay the effective date for o

Defendant has submitted to the probation office extensive records o


C 3 12 00157 JBA D 350 Fil d 09/09/13 P 13


13/69

governments version, particularly with respect to what he said and did. N

he had communications with a state employee about the status of the bill an

employee in a way he should not have, but as the PSR notes that employee

understanding that his opposition to the bill stemmed from the fact that i

associated with the RYO smoke shops were funding contributions to the D

Campaign. PSR 64. Indeed, at the end of the day, on May 24, 2012, in

implementer session, Nassi made it clearto that employee that the odds o

hold[ing] firm against the RYO bill were none.

However, defendant suggests that much of this is beside the point g

the charges against him. Defendant does not wish to turn the sentencing he

of the 2012 General Assembly session. The focus of the hearing ought to b

misconduct, and application of the 3553(a) factors. The fact remains tha

of Soucys expectations. Initially he did not discourage them, and eventual

them. Regardless whether there was an actual or potential impact on speci

Nassi became aware that Soucys colleagues were making contributions in

others, and that they expectedthat there would be an impact. That the bill

become law is probably not of paramount importance.

Nassi accepts that the offense was serious. Some of the reasons wh

outlined above in connection with Nassis deep regret for having become i


C 3 12 00157 JBA D t 350 Fil d 09/09/13 P 14


14/69

history; apart from a short period of time when he was well paid, he worke

in public service jobs for substantially less money than he could have earne

sector. Cf.Letter from David Nassi (He, unlike many of his classmates, d

high paying job at a prestigious law firm. Instead, he wanted to be a public

was regularly promoted and given more responsibilities. He put himself th

law school, often working multiple jobs to make ends meet despite the burd

Other personal characteristics are described in some of the supporting lette

memorandum as Exhibit B:4

Joshs idea of success is never just about winning the camppeople elected. It is about moving issues forward to help ascan and he has spent the majority of his adult life sacrificingothers. (Letter from Phil Sherwood, former New Britain Cmember).

As an intern with ACLU of Connecticut, Nassi prepared a brief on behalf of a class of prisoners that were being held ibeyond their sentences, because their citizenship status wasJoshua showed commitment to seeing this project through toafter his internship was over and he was moved by his abilitof others. As a state employee, Joshua worked on some olegislative issues during that time, like health care, marriageviolence protections, environmental preservation, campaign

and social justice issues. (Letter from Andrew Schnieder aACLU of Connecticut).

As a fundraiser for an international non-profit that works wbelieve strongly in public service, transparency and empathya commitment to creating change in the world that benefits o


Case 3:12 cr 00157 JBA Document 350 Filed 09/09/13 Page 15


15/69

Joshua has been beneficial to society thus far throughout h. .Joshua was instrumental in personally fighting the systemchange the legislation in banning sodas from schools. I cannumbers of examples where Joshuas influence and dedicatito advance society and was never a bad influence. (letter f

[H]e was instrumental in assisting with passing the bill thecomprehensive campaign finance reforms for Connecticut, atoward major reforms such as marriage equality, minimum wdomestic violence protect[ion] and health care reform. Mr. hand in making many positive changes for Connecticut.. . . effort and commitment are high, and Mr. Nassi, not only eaexceeded, them in every instance of positive changes he wo(letter from Richard Bo Dietl).

My experience of both his professional and personal motivbeen an unwavering commitment to help the least fortunate treats everyone, regardless of station, as an equal and worthdignity. . . . Josh has long sought to give a voice to the voiceBrian Wheeler).

I am sure that he regrets his poor judgment and that he is wwhatever it takes to make amends. My judgment is that his

in improper activities is out of character and quite at odds winstincts. (letter from Professor Emeritus Harold Schramm

Josh especially impressed me with the way he handled a veproject while he was working for former speaker Chris Donparticular legislation would have made healthcare more accthousands of state residents. Josh really put his heart into thand showed a personal passion for improving the lives of Co

residents. . .Although I do not have personal knowledge of Jin former Speaker Donovans campaign, from what I have ragainst him are unrepresentative of the person Ive known oyears. (letter from former Rep. Joseph Taborsak).

His zeal and commitment to work for a more just world is




16/69

because of moments like these, I look up to him as one. (leSt. John)

In law school Josh, on numerous occasions, took the time tabout my situation and the difficulties I was having and wascontinuing through law school. . . . I can attest that the goodthroughout his life far outweighs any harm resulting from thhave made. (letter from Justin Galletti)

This long history of work for and with people in need should carry substan

Court.

2. The need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousnto promote respect for the law, and to provide just punis

offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal condu

public from further crimes of the defendant; and to prov

with needed educational or vocational training, medical

correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

While the offense in this case was undeniably serious, defendants

perhaps was not central as others. It did not start with him. To be sure, it c

with him, but did not. He did not expect to profit personally. It seems reas

that a sentence of incarceration of any length is likely to reflect the seriousn

As to general deterrence, this factor is often very hard to apply, bec

speculation (and perhaps an unsupported leap of faith) about whether and w

will deter people from committing crimes. The consideration of general de

under 3553(a)(2)(B), mandates that the Court consider the extent to whic

potential offenders will be deterred from committing similar crimes by wh




17/69

a crime weighs the consequences of getting caught and further weighs the b

incremental risks of prison sentences of particular terms. However, most p

defendantsposition would not commit the crime at all if they thought that

caught, regardless of the punishment. Further, it is impossible to conclude

along the range of just punishments there is a tipping point, a point beyo

potential offender will conclude not to become involved in thatoffense du

this offense. On the other hand, defendant accepts that this case presents a

argument for general deterrence than many. In any event, the Court can re

any reasonable sentence will not serve materially different purposes as it re

deterrence.

Specific deterrence is far easier to apply. Defendant has already in

significant punishment. He immediately accepted responsibility for his act

he was represented by counsel although continuing thereafter. Acceptanc

. . demonstrates that an offender is ready and willing to admit his crime an

correctional system in a frame of mind that affords hope for success in reha

shorter period of time than might otherwise be necessary. McKune v. Lil

37 (2002) (plurality opinion of Kennedy, J.) (quotingBrady v. United State

753 (1970)).5 He will be on supervised release for a substantial period. If




18/69

any significant way, he would be faced with returning to prison as a second

likely face substantial collateral impacts in terms of his ability to practice l

employability outside the family business. United States v. Gayle, 2010 U

60259, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. June 17, 2010) (Specific deterrence is achieved th

loss of defendant's license to practice law, and the impact of this conviction

employability.); United States v. Gaind, 829 F. Supp. 669, 671 (S.D.N.Y.

F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1994) (decrease in ability to participate in occupation is a

individual and general deterrence).

There is very little to suggest thatpunishmentin the form of a priso

particular length will make it less likely that he will re-offend. Indeed, the

is those persons with no prior convictions, with steady employment before

who are older, recidivate much less than the average. U.S. Sentencing Com

Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation Of The Federa

Guidelines (2004) (http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdf)

3. The kinds of sentences available.

The Court may lawfully sentence defendant up to five years and a f

publicly call him a rat. Altimari,Former Donovan Aide Gets 38 Months Scandal, Hartford Courant (Aug. 27, 2013) ("Nassi became a rat and I


http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdfhttp://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdfhttp://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdfhttp://www.ussc.gov/publicat/Recidivism_General.pdf


19/69

4. Sentencing guidelines range.This case might present a potentially difficult sentencing guidelines

whether a public official was involved in the offense of conviction and a su

difficult issue of whether Nassi should receive a role adjustment. This is li

calculation of the guidelines would, if contested, require far more effort tha

particularly in the post-Bookerera. The Court has more than enough data u

apply the 3553(a) factors, and perhaps would impose substantially the sa

regardless of the guidelines. The Supreme Court has held that, for the purp

review, the reviewing court may apply a presumption of reasonableness to

sentence that reflects a proper application of the Sentencing Guidelines. R

States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2465 (2007). However, as to district judges, the s

does not enjoy the benefit of a legal presumption that the Guidelines senten

Id. See United States v. Gall, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594 (2007).

In United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), the court o

sentencing judge will normally have to determine the applicable Guideline

precise calculation of the range may not be necessary in "situations . . . wh

Guidelines ranges, whether or not adjacent, is applicable, but the sentencin

complied with section 3553(a), makes a decision to impose a non-Guidelin

regardless of which of the two ranges applies " Id at 111 12; see also Cave

g



20/69

Defendant is aware that the Court has applied the four-level adjustm

2C1.1(b)(3) in each of the sentencing proceedings to date, and presumably

included in the pending presentence reports of other defendants. Apparent

defendants objected to the calculation. Defendant does not deny that there

several others in the conspiracy believed that a public official was involved

defendant concedes that he told one of the co-defendants that a public offic

related conduct (if not in the offense of conviction). In any event, the Cou

provided with materials concerning the investigation specifically reviewing

the involvement of one or more public officials in the offense of conviction

related conduct (not the offense of conviction). Although from defendant

appears to be a close question whether a public official as defined by 2B

involved in the offense, (which, for defendants purposes, is conspiring t

contributions), in light of the Courts findings to date and the full record de

intend to offer argument or evidence and will accept the PSRs calculation

Whatever else 3553(a) does, it certainly allows the Court to fashion an ap

regardless of the application of this particular guidelines factor.

The final PSR proposes adding two levels for abuse of a position of

3B1.3. PSR 98. This adjustment was not included in the first draft of the

not sought by the government Indeed the PSR properly notes that if the a



21/69

unreasonable approach, as a practical matter. See also Carter v. United Sta

Dist. LEXIS 45254, at *4 (D. Conn. Mar. 20, 2012) (Arterton, J.) (noting s

imposed in light ofFernandezpursuant to parties stipulation despite highe

initial PSR so as to give Mr. Carter the benefit contemplated in the plea ag

However, the enhancement cannot apply unless the Court finds tha

appointed NassiDonovanwas a victim of the offense, an argument t

knowledge of the undersigned has not been advanced. An abuse of trust en

warranted if the defendant abused a position of public or private trust . . .

significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense. U.

see United States v. Friedberg, 558 F.3d 131, 133 (2d Cir. 2009). We hav

professional or managerial discretion required to establish a position of tr

3B1.3 cmt. n.1, must be entrusted to the defendant by the victim of the of

States v. Broderson, 67 F.3d 452, 455-56 (2d Cir. 1995);see alsoUnited S

178 F.3d 643, 647 (2d Cir. 1999) (noting that victim's perspective is utili

abuse of trust enhancement). United States v. Roberts, 660 F.3d 149, 164

Victim status depends upon the circumstances of the case. Id. (quoting

Cusack, 229 F.3d 344, 349 (2d Cir. 2000)). [E]very example of an abuse

Commentary accompanying Section 3B1.3 also involves a victim entrustin

employee with discretion Broderson 67 F 3d at 456 Even if his positio



22/69

upon which this adjustment would be based; it has not argued or offered ev

for an affirmative finding on this point.

5. Policy Statements.

No policy statement would seem to be implicated in this case, apart

relating to use of the current version of the guidelines.

6. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities amowith similar records who have been found guilty of simil

The Court is in an unusually good position to consider sentence dis

stage of the proceedings, at least among the co-defendants. It is, of course

pure conduit contribution cases often do not lead to prison sentences at a

6Research has uncovered very few custodial sentences for pure conduit cOne exception was United States v. Gill, 07cr01066 (C.D. Cal. 2008), invoconduits in which the defendant received a year and a day sentence and a $However, the defendant had an extensive criminal history including a priorand assault with a firearm. Cases with lengthier sentences seem to includeaggravating factors. United States v. Danielczyk, 1:11cr00085 (E.D. Va. 2sentence in case involving $186,600 in conduit contributions reimbursed blengthy list of actions to obstruct justice including creation of back-dated lcases have involved non-custodial sentences, even in cases involving privainterests in legislation, funneling prohibited sources of funds, or perjury an

See, e.g., United States v. Winn, 1:11cr10350 (D. Mass. 2012) ($100,000 ficonduit contributions totaling $64,000); United States v. Acevedo-Vila, 08-2008) (Avanzato sentenced to probation and a fine in connection with scheapproximately $100,000 of conduit contributions aimed at gaining influencgubernatorial candidate); United States v. Collier, 1:07-cr-00182 (D.D.C. 2lobbyist to probation in connection with a scheme to funnel $65,000 in con



23/69

of course, that this case is probably not like most of those cases. Each of th

this case has apparently accepted responsibility for their conduct at least at

pleading guilty, with one notable and relevant exception. It appears that al

not have any prior significant involvement with criminal activity, and all o

reasonably positive employment histories. While some others may have ha

interest in the offense and Nassi did not, Nassi had the ability and opportun

the offense at some point. On the other hand, the offense did not start with

idea and he did not initiate it with others. His involvement appears to have

than others (most notably Braddock), until relatively late in the course of th

Cuza scheme described above); United States v. Boucher, 1:06-cr-00062 (D(sentencing defendant, director of government relations for a health care coprobation and a fine for his role in illegally contributing $50,000 of corporcampaigns); United States v. Feldman, 09-cr-75 (E.D. Pa. 2009) and 08-cr-(fining defendant, prominent Philadelphia political consultant and fundraisrole in a scheme to reimburse approximately $100,000 of contributions to tPuerto Rico); United States v. LeBlanc, 06-cr-091 (D.D.C. 2007) (probatioformer chief executive of private health care company, who pled guilty to millegally contributing approximately $50,000 of corporate funds to federal States v. Spears, 1:03-cr-00096 (D.D.C. 2003) (probation for personal assisenator, who pled guilty to obstruction and conspiracy in illegal donations

campaign); United States v. Stipe, 1:03-cr-00128 (D.D.C. 2003) (sentencincommitted perjury and obstruction in connection with investigation of scheapproximately $250,000 in conduit contributions to five years probation).7The only mention of Nassi in the offense conduct in the PSR arguably concontributions before March 27, 2012, is set forth in 19, where it is writtenSoucy that he could talk to Braddock about the illegal nature and objective



24/69

One other issue may deserve at least some consideration. Although

fully aware of the course of and results of the investigation in the year sinc

confronted, it is certainly true that no one other than those in the pending in

charged, let alone convicted. In that event, the convicteddefendants would

sentence based on the claimed participation of persons who have not been,

charged with any crime. Judge Calabresi recently addressed the perhaps u

question whether the lack of charges against others who are potentially liab

sentences of those convicted. United States v. Stewart, 590 F.3d 93, 159 (2

(Calabresi, J., concurring) (Stewart I).

Judge Calabresi conceded, reasonably, that the government has ess

unreviewable authority over who to charge and what to charge them with.

mean that a judge who has presided over a full trial may not have valid rea

that the failure to charge some potential co-defendants affects, under the

propriety of a sentence. Id. He accepted that it is appropriate for a distri

its unique knowledge of the totality of circumstances of a crime and its par

a sentence that would better reflect the extent to which the participants in

similarly (or dissimilarly) situated and tailor the sentences accordingly.Id

(quoting United States v. Wills, 476 F.3d 103, 110 (2d Cir. 2007)). He not



25/69

of sentencing allows the district court to consider uncharged conduct by th

ensure that the sentence is based upon the real conduct that underlies the c

conviction, in order to prevent prosecutors, when they make charging de

exercis[ing] a power the Sentencing Act vested in judges.Stewart I, 590

(quotingBooker, 543 U.S. at 257). He concluded:

I am inclined to think that the district court should not be barred frorelevance of prosecutorial discretion in a particular case, and that oushould take advantage of the district court's unique position to conssentence "in its complete relevant context, Wills, 476 F.3d at 110 .though we may properly ask the district court to explain apparent seanomalies among convicted defendants as both the majority opiniondissent do here, we should not forget that there might be even greatbetween a defendant and other individuals who were not charged at

Stewart I, 590 F.3d at 161-62 (Calabresi, J., concurring).

The convicted defendants are paying a very heavy price for their m

be clear that Nassi, at a minimum, accepts and is willing to pay that price.

(at least to the extent that the adjustment under 2C1.1(b)(3) is involved) i

claimed involvement of others who have not been charged. It would seem

suggested by Judge Calabresi, that the Court should take into account that d

7. Restitution

Restitution is not a factor.

Conclusion



26/69

should carefully balance the 3553(a) factors and impose a sentence that in

reasonable period of incarcerationbut one not longer than necessary to

purposes of the statute.Indeed, as the PSR reasonably notes at 172, [t]h

to consider whether a sentence within the guideline range would be greater

complying with the purposes of sentencing under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). D

Court to do so based on the complete record and the applicable factors.

THE DEFENDANT

By /s/ William M. Bloss

WILLIAM M. BLOSFederal Bar No. ct010

Koskoff Koskoff & Bi350 Fairfield AvenueBridgeport, CT 06604TEL: 203-336-4421FAX: 203-368-3244Email:bbloss@kosko

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


27/69

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on September 9, 2013, the foregoing was filed

served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this

by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system

anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may access this filing th

system.

Christopher Mattei, EsquireAssistant U.S. Attorney450 Main StreetHartford, CT 06103

/S/ William M. Bloss

WILLIAM M. BLOSS

Case 3:12-cr-00157-JBA Document 350-1 Filed 09/09/13 Page 1 of 6


28/69



29/69



30/69



31/69



32/69



33/69



34/69



35/69



36/69



37/69



38/69



39/69



40/69



41/69



42/69



43/69



44/69



45/69



46/69



47/69



48/69



49/69



50/69



51/69



52/69



53/69



54/69



55/69



56/69



57/69


58/69



59/69



60/69



61/69



62/69



63/69



64/69



65/69



66/69



67/69



68/69



69/69

NASSI Joshua Sentencing Memo

Documents

Transcript of NASSI Joshua Sentencing Memo