2:15-cr-00633-RMG Date Filed 02/27/17 Entry Number 92 Page 1 of 4

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) CRIMINAL NO.: 2:15-CR-00633

)
)
-versus- ) Governments Motion for Upward
) Variance
)
JOSEPH CARLTON MEEK )

The United States of America, through its Assistant United States Attorneys Jay

Richardson and Nathan Williams, provides notice that it will ask the Court to consider an

upward variance. See Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 32(h); Irizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708,

715-16 (2008) (while noting that Rule 32(h)s notice requirement does not apply to a

variance by the Court, suggesting that notice may be necessary in particular

circumstances). In evaluating the appropriate sentence under Section 3553(a), the

Government asks the Court to consider in particular the following:

(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense.

(2) The need for the sentence imposed-- (A) to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for
the offense; [and] (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.

This Court should sentence above the applicable guideline range where it finds

aggravating circumstances of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into

consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines that . . . should

result in a sentence different from that described. 18 U.S.C. 3553(b)(1). See also USSG

5K2.0. Chapter 1, Part A of the Guidelines states:

1
 2:15-cr-00633-RMG Date Filed 02/27/17 Entry Number 92 Page 2 of 4

The Commission intends the sentencing courts to treat each guideline as carving out
a heartland, a set of typical cases embodying the conduct that each guideline
describes. When a court finds an atypical case, one to which a particular guideline
linguistically applies but where conduct significantly differs from the norm, the
court may consider whether a departure is warranted.

The circumstances of this case are atypical and exceptional. This Court is well aware of

the facts of the case and the seriousness of the defendants conduct. The sentencing

guideline provision for misprision (USSG 2X4.1) does not adequately take into account

those facts and conduct. Section 2X4.1, through a cross reference, does account for the

underlying felonies but caps the offense level and any guideline regardless of the

seriousness of the underlying offense. As a result of this cap, this guideline does not take

into account the exceptional circumstances of the underlying offenses this case presents,

nor does it account fully for the totality and seriousness of defendants actions. 1

First, the horrific nature of Roofs underlying offense is not adequately taken into

account in capping the misprision offense level used to determine the guideline range at

level 19. 2 As the Court presided over the recent capital trial for Dylann Storm Roof, the

Government does not reiterate here Roofs substantial planning, the racist retributive

1
The guidelines are driven in this case by the more serious misprision guidelines as the
Section 1001 guidelines are lower in this case. However, as a comparison, Section 1001 sentences
related to horrific crimes have been substantial. See United States v. Phillips, 13-cr-10238
(D.Mass) (36-month sentence for Section 1001 violation); United States v. Matanov, 14-10159
(D.Mass.) (30-month sentence for Section 1001 violation)
2
While the Court could consider an upward departure under Section 5K2.1s policy
statement, the Government believes that a variance is more appropriate because Meeks offenses
occurred only after Roofs attack had occurred. As such, Meeks offenses did not result in death.
However, while not part of Meeks offense, his over pre-attack conduct, in failing to disclose in
advance what he knew of Roofs plans to attack the church in Charleston on a Wednesday evening,
did deprive law enforcement of the opportunity to intervene.

2
 2:15-cr-00633-RMG Date Filed 02/27/17 Entry Number 92 Page 3 of 4

motive, the targeting of good men and women engaged in prayer and worship, the desire

to agitate race relations, and the unfathomable crime scene. Most importantly, the

guidelines fail to adequately account for the extraordinary loss to the families, church, and

community. We anticipate that some family members may wish at Meeks sentencing to

speak about their desire for a substantial sentence for Meek. 3

Second, Meeks own activities and the effect, and potential effect, those activities

had justify a variance as they are far outside the normal misprision offense considered

by the guideline. Meek was told specifics by Roof about his plan to attack the church in

Charleston well in advance of June 17, 2015. While Meek was not legally required to notify

authorities, the Court should take into account in arriving at the appropriate sentence that

Meek failed to notify authorities and, as a result, law enforcement was deprived of the

opportunity to take action to prevent Roofs attack. Moreover, once Meek learned of the

attack and immediately recognized that Roof had indeed done it, both his own failure to

notify authorities and his efforts to keep others from doing so, inhibited the manhunts

efforts to find Roof, who was at the time armed and willing to engage in violence. 4 Finally,

even after Meek learned that others had, over his objections, called law enforcement, Meek

lied to the agents about his knowledge of Roofs planning.

3
The Court could consider departing under Section 5K2.3 based on the extreme injury to
the victims but the Government believes that the more appropriate course is a variance.
4
Defendant was aware that Roof was capable of further violence, going so far as to seek
out a weapon to protect himself should Roof return to defendants home.

3
 2:15-cr-00633-RMG Date Filed 02/27/17 Entry Number 92 Page 4 of 4

The government requests that the Court vary (or depart) upward from the guideline

range in this case to fully account for the full scope and seriousness of defendants conduct,

taking into account the nature and circumstances of the defendants offense, promoting

respect for the law, and providing just punishment for the defendants conduct.

Respectfully submitted,

BETH DRAKE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: s/ Nathan Williams

Julius N. Richardson (#9823)
Nathan Williams (#10400)
Assistant United States Attorneys
151 Meeting Street, Suite 200
Charleston, South Carolina, 29402