Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA |
|
v. | Docket No. 1:17-CR-10300-RWZ
|
EVELYN MEDINA |
|
respectfully submits this memorandum in conjunction with her sentencing scheduled for January
17, 2017. Ms. Medina requests this Honorable Court accept the joint sentencing
recommendation set forth in her binding plea agreement, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
11(c)(1)(C), of fifteen (15) months imprisonment followed by two (2) years of supervised
release, in light of the considerations set forth in 18 USC § 3553(a)(2). In short, Ms. Medina
asserts the jointly recommended sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 2017, Ms. Medina pleaded guilty to an information charging her with
producing a false identification document, in violation of 18 USC § 1028(a)(1). ECF # 27, 32.
There is a binding plea agreement in this case, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), in which
the parties have agreed upon both the calculation of the sentencing guidelines and the
recommended sentence. ECF # 33. Specifically, in exchange for Ms. Medina’s prompt
acceptance of responsibility, the government has agreed not to charge Ms. Medina with
aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 USC § 1028A, and to jointly recommend a fifteen
1
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 2 of 10
ARGUMENT
I. Applicable Law
Under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259 (2005), the sentencing guidelines are
no longer mandatory. The Sentencing Reform Act requires the Court to consider guidelines
ranges, see 18 USC § 3553(a)(4), but permits it to tailor the sentence in light of other statutory
concerns. These concerns include reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for
the law, providing just punishment, affording adequate deterrence, protecting the public, and
effectively providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training and medical
care. 18 USC § 3553(a). Section 3553(a) further directs sentencing courts to consider the nature
and circumstances of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; the kinds of
sentences available; the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and the need to provide
The sentencing court must compute the guidelines, which are the “starting point and the
initial benchmark,” but which may not be presumed reasonable. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.
38, 49-51 (2007). Then, the court considers the parties’ arguments, after which it makes an
“individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” considering all of the factors under 18
USC § 3553(a). Id. Ultimately, the sentencing judge must select a sentence within the statutory
1
Under Booker, this Court may consider certain factors that are rejected or ignored by the
guidelines. Sentencing courts previously were forbidden from considering, inter alia, a
defendant’s history and characteristics to the extent that they involved his mental and emotional
condition, USSG § 5H1.3; her education and vocational skills, id. at § 5H1.2; drug or alcohol
dependence, id. at § 5H1.2; socioeconomic status, id. at § 5H1.10; or lack of guidance as a youth,
id. at § 5H1.12. These factors can now support a sentence outside the guidelines.
2
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 3 of 10
range that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to satisfy the varied purposes of
The First Circuit has summarized the central principles of the post-Booker and -Gall
United States v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 91 (1st Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 52).
governed by USSG § 2B1.1. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the parties have agreed that Ms.
Medina’s Base Offense Level (“BOL”) is six (6) because the offense has a statutory maximum
term of less than twenty (20) years. USSG § 2B1.1(a). There is no adjustment for loss and/or
gain.2 Ms. Medina’s offense level is increased to twelve (12) because the offense involved the
identification. USSG § 2B1.1(11). Her offense level is further increased by two (2) because her
offense conduct involved an abuse of a position of public trust in a manner which significantly
facilitated the crime. USSG § 3B1.3. Finally, her offense level is decreased by two (2) because
2
Ms. Medina’s gain, which in appropriate circumstances can be used as a proxy for loss when
such loss cannot be properly calculated, did not exceed the threshold requirement of $6,500 in
order to trigger an adjustment under USSG § 2B1.1(b).
3
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 4 of 10
of her prompt acceptance of responsibility.3 USSG § 3E1.1. As a result, Ms. Medina’s Total
Offense Level (“TOL”) is twelve (12). Having no prior convictions or, indeed, any former
arrests of any kind, Ms. Medina’s criminal history score is zero with a resulting Criminal History
Category (“CHC”) I. Pursuant to the federal sentencing table, a TOL 12 with a CHC I
its Presentence Report (“PSR”), has agreed with the parties’ calculation of Ms. Medina’s
III. The Requested Sentence Is Sufficient, But Not Greater Than Necessary, To Comply
With The Statutory Purposes Set Forth In Under the Sentencing Reform Act.
After determining the guideline range, this Court must consider whether the statutory
factors warrant an ultimate sentence above or below the guideline range. United States v.
Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 518-19 (1st Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has emphasized that
section 3553(a) is “more than a laundry list of discrete sentencing factors; rather, it is a tapestry
of factors, through which runs the thread of an overarching principle.” United States v.
Rodríguez, 527 F.3d 221, 228 (1st Cir. 2008) (citing Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 101). That tenet –
the “parsimony principle” – instructs “district courts to ‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not
greater than necessary’ to accomplish the goals of sentencing.” Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)).
For the following reasons, and in light of the considerations set forth under section
3553(a), Ms. Medina requests this Court accept the binding plea agreement, and impose a
sentence of fifteen (15) months imprisonment followed by two (2) years of supervised release.
3
Because Ms. Medina’s offense level prior to the two (2) point reduction for acceptance of
responsibility is less than sixteen (16), she is not eligible for a one (1) level reduction for her
timely notification of her intent to plead guilty, pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(b).
4
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 5 of 10
Ms. Medina is 56 years old and was born in the Dominican Republic, where she was
raised for most of her childhood. When she was approximately fifteen (15) years old, she, along
with her parents and siblings, immigrated to the United States with the hopes of finding a better
life with greater opportunities than could be found in her native country. Although Ms. Medina
had not yet learned the language of her new home, she quickly assimilated. While she was in
High School, she began dating Jose Rosa and from that relationship, her first daughter, Emely,
was born. Despite her unfamiliarity with the English language, her pregnancy and being thrust
into motherhood at a young age, Ms. Medina graduated from Jamaica Plain High School in 1981.
Unfortunately, her relationship with Mr. Rosa ended shortly thereafter due to infidelity on his
part. Ms. Medina’s family continued to grow when, approximately nine (9) years after the birth
of Emely, her second daughter, Lismany, was born. During this time, Ms. Medina went through
a failed marriage; Lismany’s father remains resident in the Dominican Republic. It is no small
wonder Lismany described Ms. Medina to U.S. Probation as a great parent and a “devoted,
Currently, Ms. Medina’s primary focus in life is her family, particularly her mother, her
two (2) daughters, and her infant grandson. Her mother, Anna, is 82 years old. Anna, who
suffers from diabetes as well as high blood pressure stemming from heart issues, is primarily
cared for by Ms. Medina.4 As for her children, her daughter Emely gave birth three (3) months
prematurely to a boy, Nolan in September, 2017. Ms. Medina’s arrest and anticipated
incarceration has been extremely difficult for her children. Those stresses were further
compounded by Nolan’s premature birth after only six (6) months in utero; which necessitated
4
Given her mother’s age, these health issues are almost certain to worsen as time goes on.
While incarcerated, Ms. Medina will struggle daily knowing she may lose her mother, or may
not be there should her health truly fail, which too will be powerfully deterring and punishing.
5
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 6 of 10
his hospitalization until early December. There is no doubt Ms. Medina’s incarceration will be
both punishing and deterring in light of these present circumstances; she will not be able to care
for her aging mother; she will not be there as a “mother’s helper,” as had been planned, for
Emely not only during a difficult and critical time in Nolan’s young life, but also on a daily basis
once Emely is ready to return to work; she will not be there to bond with her newborn grandson.
Moreover, upon her release, Ms. Medina will face a host of new challenges. Until her
arrest and termination, she had been employed by the RMV since 1996, a tenure of over twenty
(20) years during which her retirement benefits vested. As a result of the offense conduct to
which she has admitted, those retirement benefits will almost certainly be forfeit. Because of the
manner through which she lost her job, unemployment compensation is also unlikely. As a
result, upon her release, Ms. Medina will be compelled to try to find a new way to support
herself, as well as an entirely new line of work, and to also start saving anew, at a time when
many in the work-force will be beginning to contemplate retirement. In sum, although collateral,
the financial consequences of her voluntary decision to plead guilty will have a long-lasting and
punishing effect on Ms. Medina’s future well-after her presumed sentence of incarceration has
been served.
In sum, Ms. Medina, who had never been charged, or even arrested, prior to the instant
prosecution is a hard-working, fiercely devoted daughter and mother of two (2) who has not had
the kind of support from the men in her life one might expect from a person so dedicated to her
family. Since coming to the United States, and becoming a naturalized citizen in 1999, she had,
until her arrest last summer, otherwise lived a laudable life which would give hope to any
immigrant coming to this country. Her offense conduct is serious. She will pay the price, not just
with a substantial fifteen (15) months sentence of incarceration, but also two (2) years of
6
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 7 of 10
supervised release, a loss of her retirement benefits, a need to find new employment at the age of
56 after having worked in the same position for approximately twenty (20) years, as well as
losing the chance to see her first grandchild grow during the most tender months of his life. The
and characteristics.
In terms of the offense conduct, itself, Ms. Medina fully accepts responsibility for her
actions. She understands she was placed in a position of trust at the Registry of Motor Vehicles
(“RMV”) without which the alleged scheme would not have been possible. While she initially
attempted to justify her actions in her own mind by trying to convince herself, at the time, that
she was providing people like herself who were looking for a new life outside their native
country a quick and easy “route” of entry into the United States, she not only knew her actions
were both fraudulent and unlawful, but now fully appreciates that the results of her behavior
have far-reaching consequences. She recognizes what she did has had the opposite effect of her
originally misguided self-justification in that it has helped individuals, who unlike herself and
her own family who arrived here lawfully with the expectation of hard work and an unbridled
enthusiasm for full citizenship, to instead circumvent the rules of lawful immigration, evade the
authorities, avoid paying taxes, and effectively cheat those who are waiting patiently for
admission. Having come to this realization the hard way has had a profound impact on her and
has allowed her to fully understand the full extent of her own moral culpability in the alleged
scheme.
In so stating, undersigned counsel does not mean to suggest Ms. Medina’s conduct can,
or should, be excused. However, he respectfully notes that her own moral culpability is
7
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 8 of 10
somewhat tempered, at least to a degree, in view of the limited “compensation” she received for
her participation in the unlawful documents scheme. Ms. Medina received between $300 and
$500 for each of the identification documents she helped procure, which the government alleges
totals at least fifteen (15). As such, it cannot be said that Ms. Medina was solely motivated by
greed or personal enrichment given that she received so little compensation in comparison to the
substantial risk she was taking. From the perspective of her experienced counsel, that she
undertook great risk and while receiving so little remuneration perhaps reflects her initial failure
to appreciate and/or confront the scope, impact and effect of her criminal conduct, the error of
which she has since acknowledged (and efforted to remediate) by voluntarily deciding to change
her plea to guilty. Still, that Ms. Medina earned a meager $2,400 a month salary while employed
at the RMV, owns virtually nothing in terms of real or personal assets, and has little in the way
of liquid savings (and simultaneously almost no debt, except for a car and student loans, both of
which were procured to assist her younger daughter, Lismany) may also be instructive. Again,
and to be clear, the limited nature of Ms. Medina’s “gain” certainly does not excuse her conduct
here. Nonetheless, it inarguably provides necessary context for her illegal activity and support
The sentence jointly recommended by the parties not only reflects what is appropriate in
these particular circumstances, but was also determined with reference and comparison to other
similarly situated individuals who have also admitted their participation in the scheme. In
addition to Ms. Medina, there were three (3) other RMV clerks who have been charged with the
procurement and/or production of false identification documents. See U.S. v. David Brimage Jr.,
8
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 9 of 10
cr-10297-DPW. Each of these defendants entered-into plea agreements with the government
similar to Ms. Medina’s. Each plea agreement was made pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(c)(1)(C), and the Total Offense Level set forth in each plea agreement is the same. The
primary difference between them is the sentencing recommendation for each defendant: for
Brimage and Jordan, eight (8) months imprisonment; for Gracia, twelve (12) months and one (1)
day imprisonment; for Ms. Medina, fifteen (15) months imprisonment. These recommendations
were carefully crafted to reflect the relative culpability of each participant. Accordingly, by
accepting the jointly recommended sentence here ensures the aim of § 3553(a)(6) of sentencing
parity among defendants engaged in similar conduct with similar records is fully achieved.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Ms. Medina respectfully requests this Honorable Court adopt the
plea agreement and sentence her to a term of fifteen (15) months imprisonment followed by two
(2) years of supervised release. Ms. Medina also asks for the opportunity to self-report in
approximately forty-five (45) days to the correctional facility so-designated for her by the
Bureau of Prisons, and that this Court make a judicial recommendation that she serve her
sentence at FCI Danbury so she may be as close to her family as possible during the term of her
sentence.
9
Case 1:17-cr-10300-RWZ Document 37 Filed 01/10/18 Page 10 of 10
Certificate of Service
I, R. Bradford Bailey, hereby certify that on this, the 10th day of January, 2018, I caused
a true copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing to be served upon
all necessary parties by virtue of electronically filing the same via the court’s CM/ECF system.
10