Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Crim. No. 3:14CR32(RNC)

v.
WILLIAM DONG

January 24, 2015

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

I.

BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2013, the defendant, William Dong, was charged by complaint with

unlawful interstate transport of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(3). A federal grand

jury subsequently indicted him on the same charge. In particular, on February 25, 2014, the grand
jury returned a one-count indictment which charged as follows:
In or about September 2013, in the District of Connecticut, the defendant
WILLIAM DONG, who was not a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer, and
collector of firearms, within the meaning of Chapter 44, Title 18, United States
Code, did knowingly and willfully purchase a firearm in Pennsylvania, namely one
Bushmaster, model XM-15-E2S, .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle bearing serial
number ARB14867, and transport this firearm back to Connecticut, which was the
state where the defendant resided, and which prohibited the possession of this
firearm under Connecticut state law.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(a)(3) and
924(a)(1)(D).
On November 6, 2014, the defendant pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment and
entered into a written plea agreement at the time of the plea. In that agreement, the parties
stipulated that the base offense level was 12 under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(7), that two levels are
subtracted for acceptance of responsibility and that the defendants Criminal History Category was
I. As a result, they agreed that the defendant fell into a guideline range of 6-12 months
1

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 2 of 9

incarceration and a $2,000 to $20,000 fine. The parties expressly reserved their respective rights
to seek any sentence they deemed appropriate under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Moreover, the parties
agreed that the conduct for which the defendant has pleaded guilty in state court in October 2014
is relevant conduct for this case and should not be considered in the criminal history calculation.
The defendant waived his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence
provided that the sentence does not exceed 12 months in prison, a three-year term of supervised
release and a $20,000 fine. He did not, however, waive his appeal or habeas rights as to the
determination of whether the federal sentence should be served consecutive, partially concurrent
or concurrent to the sentence in the related state case.
Had this case proceeded to trial, the Government would have proven the following,
which is set out in paragraphs 6-14 of the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR): on December 3, 2013, at
approximately 12:26 p.m., the West Haven Police Department (WHPD) received a complaint of
an Asian male that was observed at the Shop Rite Plaza at 1131 Campbell Avenue in West Haven
exiting a vehicle carrying a rifle toward the campus of the University of New Haven (UNH).
The vehicle that the Asian male was seen exiting was found to be registered to Zhen Dong of 1336
Stratfield Road, Fairfield, Connecticut.
WHPD Officers responded to the area, and an emergency message was sent to the UNH
faculty and students to shelter in place. After a short period of time, the defendant, who resided at
1336 Stratfield Road, in Fairfield, Connecticut, was observed in the area of the UNH campus.
WHPD Officers detained him and found him to be in possession of two handguns. It was
determined that he had a Connecticut Pistol Permit. It was later determined that he was a student
at UNH and was in a classroom at the time that the emergency message was sent to UNH faculty
and students.
2

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 3 of 9

A search of the vehicle registered to Zhen Dong found in the Shop Rite Plaza resulted in
the seizure of a loaded Bushmaster model XM-15-E2S, .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle, serial
number ARB14867 and several loaded 30 round capacity magazines containing .223 caliber
ammunition. The rifle was in plain view on the floor behind the front passenger seat. Although
there was a rifle bag inside the car, it was empty, and the rifle was outside of the case.
The defendant was arrested and initially charged with Breach of Peace by the WHPD and
transported to the WHPD.

He was later charged with, among other violations, unlawful

possession of an assault weapon under Conn. Gen. Stat. 53-202c.

The Bushmaster was equipped with a telescoping stock and a flash hider, two
characteristics which also classify the firearm as an assault weapon under Connecticut state law.
In other words, in addition to the fact that the possession of this Bushmaster firearm was prohibited
under state law because it was specifically classified as an assault weapon under 53-202a, the
firearm also had characteristics which would cause it to be classified as an assault weapon under
that same statute. Indeed, although the current version of 53-202a applies to firearms purchased
or possessed on or after the statutes April 4, 2013 effective date, the Bushmaster possessed by the
defendant would have been considered a prohibited assault weapon under the prior version of
53-202a because it had a telescoping stock and a flash hider.
A trace of the Bushmaster rifle through the ATF National Tracing Center revealed that it
was first sold retail in the State of Kentucky by Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) Buds Police
Supply in Lexington, KY on March 5, 2013.
On December 3, 2013, the defendant was interviewed at the WHPD. After waiving his
Miranda rights, he stated to investigators that he had purchased the Bushmaster rifle in a private
transaction in the State of Pennsylvania that occurred in the middle of the month of September
3

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 4 of 9

2013. He found the seller of the rifle by answering a classified advertisement on

www.armslist.com.
Several documents and records corroborate the defendants confession, including the
armslist advertisement and the stored electronic communications between the defendants email
address and the seller (through the armslist.com website). In one of these emails, the defendant
asked whether the seller was willing to deal with a Connecticut resident. Phone records also
showed that the defendant had contact with an individual in Pennsylvania in September 2013.
In searching the defendants Fairfield residence (where he lived with his parents), agents
seized over 2700 rounds of ammunition. The defendant purchased all of this ammunition
lawfully. Also, prior to his arrest, the defendant ordered extended magazines for a .223 caliber
rifle, like the seized Bushmaster rifle. Under state law, these magazines would have been
unlawful to possess as of April 4, 2013. Their possession would not have violated federal law.
The PSR found that the base offense level, under Chapter Two of the November 1, 2014
version of the Sentencing Guidelines, was 12 under U.S.S.G. 2K2.1(a)(7). See PSR 20. It
subtracted two levels for the defendant=s acceptance of responsibility, resulting in an adjusted
offense level of 10. See PSR 27-28.
As to the defendant=s criminal record, the PSR concluded that the defendant fell into
Criminal History Category I because he has no prior convictions. See PSR 32. The defendant,
therefore, faces a guideline incarceration term of 6-12 months. See PSR 62.
As to the state charges arising from the defendants December 4, 2013 arrest, the PSR
noted that the defendant was convicted of one felony count of illegal sale of an assault weapon, and
two felony counts of possession of a pistol in a prohibited premises. See PSR 31. He was
sentenced to eight years incarceration, execution suspended after two years, and five years
4

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 5 of 9

probation on the assault weapon count and two concurrent two-year terms on the lesser counts.
See PSR 31. He is due to be released from state prison on December 4, 2015, though he could
become parole eligible earlier, once he is sentenced in federal court and the federal detainer is
lifted.
The defendant has filed a sentencing memorandum in which he asks the Court to impose a
sentence of time served, along with a three-year term of supervised release. In the memo, defense
counsel emphasizes the findings in the psychological evaluation that the defendant posed no threat
to his fellow students on the day of his arrest and never intended to harm anyone. According to
defense counsel, the findings of the psychological evaluation support the conclusion that the
defendants actions in possessing two loaded handguns and one loaded assault weapon resulted
from his concern for his safety and the safety of his fellow students. Defense counsel claims that
the defendant has been affected by some traumatic events, including a violent home invasion
involving his aunt.
The government does not take issue with defense counsels representations and agrees that
the state court sentence has imposed a sufficient period of incarceration to reflect the seriousness
of the offense and to deter the defendant from engaging in future criminal conduct. But the
government respectfully suggests that a longer period of federal supervision is necessary to insure
the safety of the community and the defendants future good behavior. Thus, the government
asks that, instead of imposing a sentence of time served and three years supervised release, the
court impose a sentence of five years probation.
II.

DISCUSSION
After the Supreme Courts holding in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 243-245

(2005) rendered the Sentencing Guidelines advisory rather than mandatory, a sentencing judge is
5

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 6 of 9

required to: (1) calculate[] the relevant Guidelines range, including any applicable departure
under the Guidelines system; (2) consider[] the Guidelines range, along with the other ' 3553(a)
factors; and (3) impose[] a reasonable sentence. See United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 26
(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 192 (2006); United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir.
2005). The 3553(a) factors include: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and history
and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence to serve various goals of the
criminal justice system, including (a) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect
for the law, and to provide just punishment, (b) to accomplish specific and general deterrence, (c)
to protect the public from the defendant, and (d) to provide the defendant with needed educational
or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the sentencing range set forth in the guidelines; (5) policy
statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a).
The Second Circuit reviews a sentence for reasonableness. See Rita v. United States, 127
S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007). The reasonableness standard is deferential and focuses primarily on
the sentencing courts compliance with its statutory obligation to consider the factors detailed in
18 U.S.C. 3553(a). United States v. Canova, 412 F.3d 331, 350 (2d Cir. 2005).
Based on the results of the psychological evaluation, which are summarized in the PSR, the
government does not view additional incarceration as a necessary punishment in this case. The
state has determined that two years incarceration is an appropriate sanction for his crimes, and the
government has no reason to doubt that conclusion. Moreover, prior to this case, the defendant
had never before been arrested and was attending college. He did not possess the charged firearm
in this case to cause harm to any individual or group. Clearly, his misguided desire to protect
6

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 7 of 9

himself led him to make some extremely poor choices. Still, it is hard to understand how the
defendant could have thought it acceptable to carry loaded handguns to class and to store a loaded
assault weapon in his car.
Based on the psychological evaluation and the defendants own explanation of his offense,
however, the government believes a longer period of federal supervision is necessary to protect the
public and insure that the defendant makes better choices when he feels threatened in the future.
Apparently, attacks like those that occurred in Cheshire and Newtown, and the one that victimized
his aunt have made him feel vulnerable and caused him to believe he needs to protect himself.
Presumably, those feelings will not change when he is released from incarceration. Though it is
true that he will serve a five-year term of state probation, the resources available to him through
federal probation will certainly improve the chances that, when he is released from prison, he will
return to college and will never again try to possess or use a firearm. At a minimum, those
resources are necessary to get him the mental health treatment he clearly needs and to find better
ways to manage his stress. The fact that he used www.armslist.com to purchase the Bushmaster
firearm, that he traveled to Pennsylvania to complete the purchase and that he apparently
understood he would be unable to purchase a similar firearm in Connecticut shows that he knows
how to purchase firearms unlawfully and that he is sophisticated enough to do so. Close
supervision for as long as possible, with mental health treatment, is warranted.

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 8 of 9

III.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Government respectfully asks the Court to adopt the

factual findings and guideline calculations set forth in the PSR and order a sentence of five years
probation.
Respectfully submitted,
DEIRDRE M. DALY
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
/s/ Robert M. Spector
ROBERT M. SPECTOR
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FEDERAL BAR NO. CT18082
157 CHURCH STREET; 23RD FLOOR
NEW HAVEN, CT 06510
203-821-3700

Case 3:14-cr-00032-RNC Document 64 Filed 01/24/15 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that on January 24, 2015, the foregoing Sentencing Memorandum was filed
electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts
electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Parties may
access this filing through the Courts system.

/s/ Robert M. Spector

ROBERT M. SPECTOR
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY