Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
CLERKs OFFICE
20i6 JAN 27 PM 2: 58
follow us.
January 27, 2015
r;
j
e_
1
Respectfully;
I
\
\
... /...
____ ....../
Senior Reporter
Columbus Ledger-Enquirer
706 681-4014
chwilliams@ledger-enquirer.com
------------- _......
*
*
vs.
SAWAN S. SHAH,
*
O R D E R
privacy
candid
rights
assessment
of
of
citizens
a
who
criminal
voluntarily
defendants
share
character?
their
To
Defendants
sentencing
hearing.
The
Court
next
the
face
operating
value
an
of
the
unlicensed
checks.
money
U.S.
months
Defendant
pled
transmitting
guilty
to
business,
in
imprisonment
and
three
years
of
supervised
Revenue
Service
in
the
amount
of
$1,357,476.18.
Prior to Defendants sentencing hearing, the United States
Probation
Office
prepared
Presentence
Investigation
Report
(PSR), and both the Government and counsel for Defendant filed
sentencing memoranda.
hearing,
Defendants
counsel
sought
sentence
of
The
of
his
character,
and
that
he
should
receive
lenient sentence.
is
the
Sheriff
Muscogee
County,
Georgia,
made
public
range
was
between
thirty
and
thirty-seven
months.
range
of
twenty-one
to
twenty-seven
months
based
on
States
Sentencing
Guidelines.
The
Court
granted
the
Thus,
variance to probation.
sentencing
memorandum.
character
letters,
deserved
credit
(notwithstanding
certainly
did
Pointing
Defendants
for
his
not
counsel
having
aberrant
need
to
been
to
these
argued
such
criminal
go
to
impressive
that
model
conduct),
prison.
and
Defendant
citizen
that
Considering
he
the
that
and
an
additional
rejected
Instead,
downward
Defendants
the
Court
plea
variance
for
sentenced
him
was
sentence
within
not
of
the
character
letters
sentencing hearing.
Defendant
had
provided
to
the
Court
prior
to
the
received
from
at
least
three
elected
public
sentencing
interest
in
hearing.
this
character letters.
Contending
case,
the
that
reporter
the
seeks
public
access
has
to
an
the
opportunity to respond.
whether
First,
the
the
proceedings
important
interests
character
public
are
letters
has
open
an
and
are
at
should
be
interest
transparent.
in
stake
in
publicly
assuring
The
deciding
disclosed.
that
federal
court
district
manner
particularly
that
allows
sensitive
to
public
the
scrutiny.
need
for
The
openness
Court
in
is
criminal
because
States.
When
he
a
violated
citizen
the
is
criminal
found
law
guilty
of
of
the
United
crime,
the
the
to
public.
The
public
has
the
right
know
how
their
No one
the
is
publics
compelling
right
and
to
open
often
access
to
indisputable,
sentencing
it
is
not
process.
sentencing
judge
by
For
the
example,
United
the
States
PSRs
provided
Probation
to
the
Office
are
party); United States v. Wayne, 591 F.3d 1326, 1334 n.7 (10th
Cir. 2010) (explaining that disclosure of a PSR must serve the
interests of justice); United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc.,
711 F.2d 1164, 1175 (2d Cir. 1983) (disclosing a PSR is not
appropriate absent compelling need to satisfy ends of justice).
The judge may disclose certain parts of the PSR during a public
sentencing, but there are items in those reports that are never
disclosed to the public, and legitimate reasons exist for such
confidentiality.
he
Thus,
was
the
treated
Court
by
has
his
the
parents,
authority
or
to
his
medical
history.
legitimately
restrict
has
the
best
available
sentencing discretion.
public
could
have
information
when
exercising
its
effect
on
the
willingness
of
thus
into
the
depriving
the
defendants
sentencing
character,
judge
which
of
the
valuable
sentencing
See 18
U.S.C. 3553(a)(1).
II.
the
Court
has
not
asked
the
authors
of
the
letters,
Defendants
counsel
does
object.
And
it
is
diminishes the privacy interest that the authors may have in the
letters.
strong
interest
exists
in
assuring
the
public
to
know
what
information
that
the
federal
It is also important
a
sentencing
judge
That importance
these
important
interests
with
the
interests
The Court
By
redacting
the
names
of
the
private
citizen
authors, the Court protects their privacy and also reduces the
potential
cause.
future
chilling
effect
that
broader
order
could
officials
expectation
of
privacy
is
significantly
Therefore, it
The Court hastens to add that it does not imply that these public
officials did anything wrong by submitting letters regarding their
personal knowledge of the Defendants character. But the public does
have the right to know that they did so.
CONCLUSION
Under
the
particular
circumstances
of
this
case,
the
finds
that
disclosure
of
the
letters
in
The Court
the
manner