Richard Wilson Sentencing Transcript

download Richard Wilson Sentencing Transcript

of 42

  • date post

    27-Mar-2015
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    157
  • download

    3

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Richard Wilson Sentencing Transcript

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 1 of 42 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) )No. CR09-232 RAJ Plaintiff, ) ) v. )Seattle, Washington ) RICHARD WILSON, )June 11, 2010 )10:45 a.m. Defendant. ) ______________________________) EXCERPT OF VERBATIM REPORTED PROCEEDINGS FOR: FELONY SENTENCING BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: ANDREW FRIEDMAN, ESQ. Assistant U.S. Attorney 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, Washington 98101 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

For the Defendant:

PETER OFFENBECHER, ESQ. Skellenger Bender PS 1301 5th Avenue, Suite 3401 Seattle, Washington 98101 poffenbecher@skellengerbender.com

Court Reporter:

DONNA HUNTER, CCR, RPR Vernon & Associates Court Reporters 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D Tacoma, Washington 98402

Vernon & Associates Court Reporters, LLC 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D, Tacoma, WA 98407 (253) 627-2062

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 2 of 42 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(Defendant present.) THE CLERK: Please rise. United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington is now in session, the Honorable Richard A. Jones presiding. THE COURT: THE CLERK: Good morning. Please be seated.

We are here for sentencing in the matter

of United States v. Richard Wilson, Cause No. CR09-232 assigned to this Court. Counsel, please rise and make your appearances,

and also the probation officer. MR. FRIEDMAN: Good morning, Your Honor, Andrew

Friedman for the United States. THE COURT: Good morning. Peter Offenbecher appearing with Mr. Good morning,

MR. OFFENBECHER:

Wilson who is present in court out of custody. Your Honor. THE COURT: MS. BOLLE: Morning, both of you.

Morning, Your Honor, Lorraine Bolle for

the United States Probation Office. THE COURT: Good morning. As indicated we are here For purposes of sentencing

for the sentencing of the Defendant.

it is my practice to always identify the documents that have been submitted for my consideration and that I have reviewed and they include the following: The presentence report prepared by

Probation Officer Lorraine Bolle with attachments; the government's sentencing memorandum and motion to order to seal

Vernon & Associates Court Reporters, LLC 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D, Tacoma, WA 98407 (253) 627-2062

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 3 of 42 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

the sentencing memorandum which the Court has signed and provided to the in-court deputy for filing; the Defendant's sentencing memorandum with exhibits and motion in order to seal the Defendant's sentencing memorandum, which order the Court has signed and is submitting for the in-court deputy for filing. I have also reviewed the United States Pretrial Services release status report and the sealed plea agreement. Counsel

for the government, are you aware of any additional documents submitted for my consideration that I did not state for the record? MR. FRIEDMAN: THE COURT: you. MR. OFFENBECHER: I just want to make sure that the No Your Honor.

Counsel for the defense, same question for

Court has received a -- an amendment to the probation report. There was a one-page insert. THE COURT: Yes. Other than that, no, nothing. And, Mr. Offenbecher, I am assuming

MR. OFFENBECHER: THE COURT: Okay.

also that you've had the opportunity to review the presentence report with your client? MR. OFFENBECHER: THE COURT: you had. Yes, Your Honor.

Counsel, there are a few objections that I

First of all, I note that you had clarifications.

don't treat the clarifications as something that requires Court

Vernon & Associates Court Reporters, LLC 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D, Tacoma, WA 98407 (253) 627-2062

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 4 of 42 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

resolution or Court intervention; is that correct? MR. OFFENBECHER: THE COURT: Yes, Your Honor.

Now the next, Counsel, you had a few The first

objections which the Court wishes to address.

objection dealt with the drug quantity and the calculation of the drug quantity. First of all, I'll let you know that I am

inclined to grant your objection in light of the fact that it does not appear to be fair to sentence some defendants under mixture and some defendants under pure quantities of drugs, and I'll certainly give the government the opportunity to make objection against that, but I believe it's appropriate to treat all defendants similarly situated the exact same way and not give benefit to those that have the benefit of pleading guilty and being sentenced before the laboratory reports come out. So

just on that objection, Counsel for the government, do you wish to weigh in at all? MR. FRIEDMAN: Your Honor, I would just ask to I guess I would say that

preserve my objection for the record.

I think it is appropriate to sentence based on the record as it exists. I have no further argument to offer. THE COURT: Your objection is noted. Next, Counsel,

is Mr. Offenbecher's objection regarding role in the offense. Counsel for the defense, I will give you the opportunity to take further argument if you wish. MR. OFFENBECHER: Mr. Offenbecher.

Your Honor, I am not sure that I

Vernon & Associates Court Reporters, LLC 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D, Tacoma, WA 98407 (253) 627-2062

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 5 of 42 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

need to argue to the Court.

I think the Court probably has in

mind the facts in the case, and during the course of our arguing the case to the Court since it is a proposed 11(c)(1)(C) agreement with the three to five year range, I would like to address the Court on Mr. Wilson's role in the offense as compared to the others. And we were simply suggesting that in

calculating the guideline range, that weighing one factor that it ought to be as Mr. Friedman's suggested a two level downward adjustment. adjustment. I simply suggested a four level downward If the Court, and for the reasons I've stated, and

I don't think I have any further argument, if the Court accepts that, the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement, the range will be below the guideline range in any case, so I think the -- the argument that I make here is sufficient. THE COURT: Okay. Any supplementation that you wish

to make, Counsel for the government, on that issue? MR. FRIEDMAN: No, Your Honor. The government agrees

with the Probation Office.

The facts here in the record negate

minor but not minimal adjustment. THE COURT: Mr. Offenbecher, with that specific

objection which the Court is going to rule on in my overall calculations, do you have any other objections that require Court intervention or resolution? MR. OFFENBECHER: THE COURT: No, Your Honor.

Counsel for the government, I assume that

Vernon & Associates Court Reporters, LLC 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D, Tacoma, WA 98407 (253) 627-2062

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 6 of 42 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

you have no other objections to the presentence report that require Court intervention; is that a correct statement? MR. FRIEDMAN: THE COURT: That is correct, Your Honor. Then I will announce my

All right.

conclusion as to the appropriate offense level and criminal history category. We begin with the Court noting first of all

that I have used the November 2009 edition of the Sentencing Guidelines for these calculations. The Defendant has entered a

plea of guilty to Count 1, conspiracy to export firearms without a license and Count 2, distribution of cocaine. The guideline

for a violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 is found at guideline section 2X1.1. is level 26. The base offense for Count 1

There are no other adjustments appropriate for

offense characteristics, victim related adjustments, role in the offense or for obstruction of justice as it relates to that particular count, therefore, the adjusted offense level remains a 26. Now as it relates to the calculation for the second count, which is distribution of cocaine, the Court has already noted for the parties that I will sentence the Defendant under the calculation, and that is the calculation that is provided in the response to the objections, and the parties look at page three of the response to the objections attached to the presentence report, the Court believes that is an accurate statement with the Court treating the drug amount as a mixture to make sure

Vernon & Associates Court Reporters, LLC 3641 N. Pearl, Unit D, Tacoma, WA 98407 (253) 627-2062

Case 2:09-cr-00232-RAJ Document 162

Filed 09/16/10 Page 7 of 42 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

there is consistency in sentencing for all defendants.

In that

regard with that conversion, the base offense level should be 34. The Defendant in this regard the Court will find him to be

a minor participant, and under 3B1.2(b), the base offense level is reduced by three levels in the Court's sentencing guideline 2D1.1A5. In this regard it goes from a 34 to a 31.

Under specific offense characteristics, the Court finds that the Defendant di