Skeeter Manos Sentencing Memo

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21
Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 15
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 26 27 28
The Honorable Robert J. Bryan
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SKEETER TIMOTHY MANOS, ) ) Defendant. )
No. CR12- 5091RJB GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
The United States of America, by and through Jenny A. Durkan, United States Attorney for the Western District of Washington, and Robert Westinghouse, Assistant United States Attorney for said District, files this Sentencing Memorandum. The sentencing hearing for the defendant SKEETER TIMOTHY MANOS is set for Friday, June 29, 2012. I. INTRODUCTION On March 16, 2012, defendant pleaded guilty to the offense of Wire Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. Dkt.#16. The guilty plea was entered pursuant to a written Plea Agreement. Dkt. # 17. The salient sentencing provision of that agreement binds the parties to recommend a sentence within the guideline range of 27 to 33 months if the Court determines that both the adjustment for misrepresentation relating to a charitable organization pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section
GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 1 No. CR12-5091RJB
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 (206) 553-7970
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 26 27 28
2B1.1(b)(9)(A) and the adjustment for abuse of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. Section 3B1.3 apply, and to recommend a sentence within the guideline range of 21 to 27 months if only one of these two adjustments applies. The United States Probation Office in its PreSentence Report has concluded that both adjustments apply and the applicable sentencing guideline range is 27 to 33 months. Likewise, the United States urges that both guidelines should apply. The United States recommends a sentence at the high end of this guideline range, i.e. a 33-month term of imprisonment, be imposed.
II. DISCUSSION A. The Offense Defendants thefts involve two separate courses of conduct. One began in the weeks following the November 29, 2009, tragic death of four Lakewood Police Officers at the hands of a lone gunman. In the aftermath of these shootings, a spokesperson for the Lakewood Police Department announced that the public could send donations for the families of the fallen officers to a post office box maintained by the Lakewood Police Independent Guild (LPIG or Guild). The LPIG was overwhelmed with the publics response and Defendant, who was then the Guild treasurer, offered to assist with the processing of the donations. He was responsible for retrieving donations from the Guild post office box and depositing the donations into an account established for charitable contributions. On January 19, 2010, defendant, unbeknownst to Guild members, opened another bank account at Bank of America in the name of LPIG. To facilitate the opening of this account, he forged the signature of his friend, who was then the Guild president, on the signature card. Defendant did not disclose the existence of this account to anyone else. Beginning shortly after its opening, and continuing for almost a full year, he made a series of deposits into this account using some of the charitable donations, which he had skimmed from the pool of post office box receipts..
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 26 27 28
The defendant systematically drained the proceeds in this account by using a debit card to make cash withdrawals. These withdrawals occurred between February 12, 2010, and February 20, 2011, and totaled approximately $51,000. During this period, Defendant made more than one hundred separate cash withdrawals using the debit card associated with this account. Included in this aggregate number are 21 separate cash withdrawals at the Emerald Queen Casino, Tacoma, Washington; 20 separate cash withdrawals at the Hawks Priarie Casino, Lacey, Washington; and 9 separate cash withdrawals at the Macau Casino in Lakewood, Washington. This ATM activity also included two debits for $504.99 each, on April 24, 2010, and April 25, 2010, respectively, from ATM machines located at the Bellagio and Planet Hollywood hotels in Las Vegas, Nevada.1 In addition to the diversions of cash through these ATM withdrawals, defendant made steady use of the same account debit card to charge purchases through various online and brick-and-mortar merchants for his personal benefit and pleasure. For example, he charged the Alaska Airlines Las Vegas tickets, the Bellagio hotel room, and tickets for a Cirque du Soleil performance for his wife and him through Expedia. In addition, he bought truck parts, including a winch for his Jeep, from 4 Wheel Parts; computers, a television, and an air conditioner from Costco; snowboard equipment, climbing gear, winter clothing and jackets from REI; and a stainless steel refrigerator, microwave oven, and a dishwasher from The Home Depot. In all, Defendant made expenditures for well over a year from this secret account, using the debit card more than 225 separate times. Finally, defendant used this account to write several checks, at least one of which was to pay his home mortgage. In all, the total amount of donations stolen by Defendant, including the merchant purchases and the ATM withdrawals equaled approximately
The Bellagio withdrawal was the specific act of execution of the wire fraud scheme alleged in the Information to which Defendant pleaded guilty.
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 26 27 28
$112,000. All of this money benefitted Defendant and his family and most certainly not the intended beneficiaries, i.e., the families of the fallen officers.2 The second course of criminal conduct actually pre-dated the charity thefts. It began in approximately May 2009, when Defendant established a bank account in his own name at Washington State Employees Credit Union (WSECU). Thereafter, he began writing checks against an account in the name of LPIG and deposited these checks into his WSECU account. He accessed the deposited funds by using a debit card associated with the WSECU account to make cash withdrawals and to purchase items for his personal use from merchants, just as he had done with the stolen charitable donations. In total, he took approximately $47,000 from his fellow officers, all the while reporting to the LPIG membership that he had used the funds to purchase certificates of deposit for the Guild. These thefts also continued into 2011, more than one and one half years after Defendant began his thievery. Defendant conduct clearly involved an extraordinary abuse of trust. B. The Impact of the Offense As financial crimes come and go, defendants criminal wrongdoing ranks at the very top of despicable acts. Indeed, it would be difficult to imagine thievery that is any more brazen or heartless. Much of the money stolen by Defendant had been donated by the community to honor four slain Lakewood Police Officers and to provide care and support for the families of these fallen public servants. Word of this thievery must have jolted those who gave their hard-earned money to their core. Who could be more deserving of trust or more the model of integrity than police officers seeking to ease their own pain and grief and the pain and financial burdens experienced by the families of their
The total amount deposited into this account was $151,255.16. Six checks, totaling approximately $39,000.00, appear to have been used by Defendant for purposes that were not specifically personal to him. One check for $19,912.95 was paid to the charity fund, apparently to replace a donation from the City of Lakewood, after inquiry had been made about the receipt of the funds. Other checks were written by Defendant to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Department of Treasury, apparently to cover fines and penalties incurred because he had neglected, in his capacity as the Guilds treasurer, to maintain the Guilds tax-exempt status and to file required tax returns.
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 26 27 28
fellow officers who had been lost in the line of duty? Yet, Defendant managed to create doubt and distrust where trust and integrity had been accepted principals. The victim impact statements speak poignantly of the loss of good will and the tarnishing of the reputations of law enforcement officers, generally, and the Lakewood Police Officers and employees specifically. Indeed, one victim impact statement captures the magnitude of the harm by noting the embarrassment that many Lakewood Police Officers felt in donning their uniforms after news of this crime was published. The effects of the defendants criminality threaten to linger for years. Because defendant was himself, a Lakewood Police Office, his conduct implicitly impugns the trustworthiness and commitment to community of every other Lakewood Police Officer and law enforcement officers generally. Defendants conduct has the potential to create an element of doubt in the public eye about the integrity and professionalism of all policemen and women, who devote their lives to public service. Likewise, the shameful acts of defendant cast a lasting shadow over charitable fundraising in this District with the very real danger that those who are solicited for charitable giving may hesitate or decline to give because they lack the confidence that the charitable purpose is as represented or the ultimate recipient of the charitable solicitation will be the charity and not its workers. This danger is greater yet when those soliciting are in uniform or act on behalf of a law enforcement group with such obvious parallels to defendant. Clearly, the impact of defendants crime radiates far beyond the direct victims whose donations he pilfered. Victim impact statements submitted by radio talk show hosts specifically address this impact referencing the potential reluctance of their listeners to donate to charitable causes which they support in the future. There is as well another highly disturbing facet of defendants malevolence that surfaced during this investigation. Not only did defendant line his own pockets with the charitable donations intended for the families of his fellow officers who had been killed in the line of duty, but also he stole additional sums from his fellow police officers who had placed him in a position of particular trust as the treasurer of their Guild.
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 26 27 28
Instead of guarding and managing the Guilds dues, defendant diverted a portion of the dollars to further enhance his personal life, all the while deceiving the membership as to the true status of their funds. Just as he abused the trust and loyalty of his friend and fellow Lakewood police officer by forging this officers name on the bank account which he opened as a vehicle for diverting money from the Lakewood Police Charity, he abused the trust of all Guild members by simultaneously stealing the Guilds money. His conduct is reprehensible. The degree of defendants depravity is perhaps best captured by his handling of a donation of cash and a hand-carved memorial knife from an Oregon law enforcement officer who had raised $5000 for the fallen officers by carving and selling a series of memorial knives. When this officer sought confirmation that the donation had been received, defendant, who had deposited the check into his secret account, made up a story to explain why the donation had not been credited to the charity fund. The search of defendants residence, after his crime had been discovered, revealed the memorial knife that had been included with the cash. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that many victim impact statements have been submitted in this case, all of which express frustration and anger at defendant and his criminal actions. Defendant has hurt an awfully lot of people and the hurt is deeply felt. These victim impact statements express the view that the punishment should reflect the severity of this conduct. Not unexpectedly, defendant has produced letters of support from family members and close friends. These letters speak to his difficult childhood and the emotional trauma that he has experienced throughout his life, first as a Marine and later as a Washington State trooper and Lakewood Police officer. Presumably these life experiences played some part in shaping the defendant. There is no clear path, however, from such a troubled and challenging background, to the present criminal conduct. Instead, it appears that much of the cause of defendants criminal conduct was simple greed. He stole to have more toys; he stole to have more fun; and, he stole to gamble. There may have been
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 26 27 28
financial pressures, but many Americans unfortunately experience such challenges, while few stoop to the lows exhibited by this man. It is just too easy to explain away the years of thievery through repeated ATM withdrawals and innumerable swipes of the debit cards on the secret charity and Guild accounts, all wrapped in lies and deceit, by the rationalization that defendants troubled childhood, or perhaps, PTSD was the root cause. The pattern of criminal conduct does not fit this explanation. C. The Sentencing Guidelines The United States agrees with the calculation of the applicable sentencing guideline range as calculated in the Presentence Report (PSR) and as detailed below: Base Offense Level Loss Amount (more than $120,000) Charitable Misrepresentation Abuse of Trust Acceptance of Responsibility Total Offense Level: 7 +10 +2 +2 3 18 USSG 2B1.1(a) USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) USSG 2B1.1(b)(8)(A) USSG 3B1.3 USSG 3E1.1
Defendant has zero criminal history points and therefore falls within Criminal History Category I. With a total offense level of 18 and a Criminal History Category of I, defendants guideline range for this offense is a term of imprisonment of 27 to 33 months. By the terms of the Plea Agreement, only one guidelines issue is left in doubt. Defendant reserved the right to argue that it was improper to include in the calculation of his total offense level, both a two-point increase for charitable misrepresentation and a second two-point increase for abuse of trust. He points to the following language in the Commentary to Section 2B1.1 for support for his argument.
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 26 27 28
(E) Non-Applicability of Chapter Three Adjustments (i) Subsection (b)(8)(A) If the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under Subsection (b)(8)(A) is the only conduct that forms the basis for adjustment under Section 3B1.3(Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill) do not apply that adjustment under Section 3B1.3. (ii) Subsection (b)(8)(B)(C) If the conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(8)(B) or (C) is the only conduct that forms the basis for an adjustment under Section 3C1.1 (Obstruction or Impeding the Administration of Justice), do not apply that adjustment under Section 3C1.1 Commentary, n. 7(E) (page 93-4). Here, only subparagraph (i) of the note relates to the adjustments at issue, i.e., charitable misrepresentation and abuse of trust. Although it may generally be the case that the abuse of trust that serves as the basis for the Section 3B1.1adjustment is tightly wrapped in the charitable misrepresentation, thereby making it fundamentally unfair to assess both adjustments for what is ostensibly part and parcel of the same wrong, such is not the case in this instance. The short answer to defendants argument is that the basis for application of the charitable misrepresentation adjustment is entirely distinct from the basis for the application of the abuse of trust adjustment. Defendants thefts involve two separate courses of conduct. In the charitable fraud, defendant made many misrepresentations and material omissions in the course of stealing donations intended for the fallen officers families. He lied to Bank of America by submitting a signature card on which he had forged the name of his friend, the Guild president to facilitate the opening of the account into which he deposited the stolen donations.. He deceived those whose donations he stole by allowing them to believe that their donations had reached the intended charity. He deceived many merchants and bankers maintaining ATM machines on innumerable occasions by using with implicit authority a debit card associated with the concealed account to siphon donations out of the account. Conduct where the gravamen of the offense was that the accused used his position within a charity to embezzle from it has repeatedly been recognized as providing an adequate basis for the application of the charitable misrepresentation adjustment. See
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 26 27 28
United States v. Lambert, 498 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2007) (charitable misrepresentation adjustment applied where grant writer for charitable organization who submitted false invoices for work allegedly done on behalf of charity). See also, U.S. v. Reason, 541 F.3d 366, 372 (5th Cir. 2008) (following Lambert, charitable misrepresentation enhancement applied to office manager of a Catholic church who embezzled funds by writing checks against the churchs general fund and the parish priests account); U.S. v. Bennett, 161 F.3d 171, 191-92 (3rd Cir. 1998) (approved application of charitable misrepresentation enhancement where defendant was technically acting on behalf of a charity, but did so as a means of benefitting himself); U.S. v. Marcum 16 F.3d 599, 603 (4th Cir. 1994) (charitable misrepresentation enhancement applied where corporal in county sheriffs office and president of the sheriffs association, skimmed 10% of proceeds from a bingo game run for charity). Of course, Defendant, like almost every other person who chooses to steal from a charity, abuses the trust of others. Here the victims were those who made donations as well as those within the Lakewood Police Department who tasked him with depositing the donations. This abuse of trust is distinct, however, from that reflected in the thefts from the Guild, a completely separate course of conduct which began months earlier and involved the defendants theft from an entirely separate fund. Defendant criminality in stealing from his fellow officers by taking the Guilds money had nothing to do with any charitable solicitation and certainly did not involve any misrepresentation regarding a charity. It began approximately six months before the four Lakewood Police officers were murdered. It was premised entirely on Defendant taking funds from the Guild by writing a series of checks on a Guild account and depositing them into an account which he established and over which he maintained sole authority. Indeed, not applying both adjustments fails to address the distinctive means by which Defendant benefitted himself at the expense of both his fellow police officers and those who generously donated to the charity.
Filed 06/22/12 Page 10 of 15
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 26 27 28
D.
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a) Factors Pursuant to the Supreme Courts decision in United States v. Booker,
543 US 220 (2005), this Court is required to consider the sentencing range calculated under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, together with the other factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a) (3553(a) factors), including: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (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, (b) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, (c) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and (d) to provide the defendant with educational and vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range established for the offense as set forth in the guidelines; (5) any pertinent policy statement; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity among defendants involved in similar conduct who have similar records; and, (7) the need to provide restitution to victims. Of these factors, the following are of the most significance here. 1. Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses
The nature and circumstances of the instant offense are egregious. As previously discussed defendant preyed upon the generosity and the trust of others without regret or remorse, at least until after he was caught, for those left in his wake. The families of the fallen officers suffered immeasurably because of the heinous murders of their loved ones. In the aftermath of these tragic shootings, defendants wanton disregard for the wellbeing of these families to whom the gifts were intended and for the members of the community who sought to aid these families through their gifts added to the pain of the families, the donors, and the law enforcement officers who were themselves dealing with the tragedy. At the same time, Defendant jeopardized the reputation for trust and integrity of his fellow Lakewood Police Officers specifically and law enforcement officers
Filed 06/22/12 Page 11 of 15
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 26 27 28
everywhere, generally. Policemen and women depend upon the trust and confidence that those whom they serve place in them. Evidence that this trust is, on occasion, misplaced and that a public servant sworn to uphold the law has instead violated it, shakes the very foundations of our society. In addition, Defendant enhanced the burden on all legitimate charitable organizations by creating an element of doubt in all future donors to worthwhile causes. Charities rely upon the generosity of the community to further their work. The good faith of the community in their cause is a mainstay of their efforts to solicit contributions. The criminal conduct of defendant makes the task for all such charitable causes that much more difficult. In sum, the magnitude of defendants wrongdoings cannot be overstated. He stole from the needy at a time of great loss for his own personal gain. 2. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
The Court must also consider the history and characteristics of this defendant. Defendant comes before the Court with no known criminal history. He has served his community, both as a Marine and as a police officer. The letters of support suggest he has had a difficult upbringing and that much of what he had accomplished before this criminality was a credit to his hard work and self advancement. This is in stark contrast to the man who committed this multi-year string of embezzlements and spent the money on himself and those around him. Defendants insatiable desire for money is inexcusable. In his letter to the Court, defendant claims that he began embezzling from the Guild because he needed to save his house after missing a mortgage payment. If true, it stops well short of explaining the extent and duration of his criminal wrongdoing. Nor does it either explain or excuse his decision to prioritize personal fun and recreation at the expense of others, especially those already traumatized by loss. As was later discovered, he simultaneously stole from his fellow police officers and from the donors to the charity for the fallen officers. Apparently, unsatisfied with the lifestyle his legitimate income could afford, defendant used the donors and Guild money like his own personal piggy bank to live beyond his means.
Filed 06/22/12 Page 12 of 15
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 26 27 28
In his letter to the Court, defendant states that he set up a separate account to accumulate money to repay the Guild, but ended this plan when his wife pressed him for an explanation regarding his smaller paychecks. Evidence of such a separate account has not surfaced in the course of the investigation. More importantly, no evidence has been gathered to indicate that defendant made any repayments to either the Guild or the charity. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Rather than stopping his thievery and returning the money, defendant continued to steal and to drain the accounts into which he had placed the stolen money. As with every criminal defendant, there are clearly positives about defendants life and his accomplishments. In this case, however, it is difficult to balance these positives against the enormity of defendants criminal conduct. He has violated two of the most sacred of societal taboos he stole from the needy and he breached the trust that the community had placed in him. 3. The Need to Promote Respect for the Law, Provide Just Punishment, and Deter Future Criminal Conduct
As always, there is a crucial need to promote respect for the laws, to provide just punishment, and, in doing so, to deter future criminal conduct. That need is particularly acute in this case. Defendant was a police office when he committed these crimes. Because of his status, more was expected of him. He was given donations made at a time of great personal and community trauma by members of the public who were seeking to relieve the personal and shared pain flowing from the senseless killing of four public servants. He was also entrusted with the funds paid by his fellow officers to further their professional goals. Defendant ran roughshod over the confidence and trust of all. The circumstances virtually dictate that a harsh sentence be imposed because nothing else would seem adequate. Furthermore, charitable organizations are uniquely vulnerable to embezzlement and fraud. A harsh sentence is also necessary to deter others who may themselves find the easy touch of a charity too tempting to resist.
Filed 06/22/12 Page 13 of 15
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 26 27 28
4.
The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity
In fashioning a sentence, the Court also must consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). This case is unquestionably exceptional. Unfortunately it is not entirely unique. A few monthsago, Randall Morrison was sentenced to a 30-month term of imprisonment for embezzling money from RMH (Ronald MacDonald House) Holiday Cruise, a charity that operates in conjunction with the Ronald McDonald House of Seattle. U.S. v. Morrison, CR11-0281JLR, No. 46, (W.D.WA April 4, 2012) (LEXIS, Courtlink Dist. File). The organization, which is run by a committee of officers and an executive board, solicits volunteers and charitable donations for the Ronald McDonald House, and organizes activities, gatherings, and events throughout the year for medically fragile children and their families. Over a period of years, Mr. Morrison embezzled almost exactly the same amount of money from this charity as the defendant embezzled from the fallen officers charity. There is a clear parallel between the cases in that each involves the victimization of a vulnerable charity. On the other hand, defendants conduct stands out, even when contrasted to that of Mr. Morrison, because it also involved such a striking abuse of trust and because it was directed at not only the charitable donors but also fellow police officers. In other words, defendant did the unthinkable and then he did it again. A sentence at the high end of the applicable guideline range is consistent with the egregiousness of the criminal conduct before the Court in this case. By any measure, defendants criminal conduct was appalling. He threatened the well-being of families who had suffered enormously; he victimized those who sought to donate to a worthy cause; he misled his fellow officers; and, he abused his position as a law enforcement officer. He did this all for his own personal gain. We respectfully urge the Court to impose a 33-month sentence of imprisonment to be followed by a three year term of supervised release with a condition that defendant pay full restitution.
Filed 06/22/12 Page 14 of 15
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 26 27 28
E.
Restitution As part of the plea agreement, the defendant has agreed to make full restitution to
the both the charity and to the Lakewood Police Independent Guild. The United States requests an order of restitution to the charity in the amount of One Hundred Twelve Thousand Dollars ($112,000.00) and to the Guild in the amount of Forty Seven Thousand Dollars ($47,000.00), payable as directed by the Probation Office.3
III. CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the United States respectfully requests that this Court impose a sentence in this matter as set forth above. DATED this 22nd day of June, 2012.
Respectfully submitted, JENNY A. DURKAN United States Attorney s/Robert Westinghouse ROBERT WESTINGHOUSE Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorneys Office 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, WA 98101-1271 Telephone: (206) 553-4750 Fax: (206) 553-2502 E-mail: robert.westinghouse@usdoj.gov
The Plea Agreement envisions the possibility that the Guild loss could be adjusted upward if supported by evidence of greater loss. To date, the Guild has not provided evidence to support any additional loss.
Filed 06/22/12 Page 15 of 15
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 26 27 28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 22, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the attorney(s) of record for the defendant(s). I hereby certify that I have served the attorney(s) of record for the defendant(s) that are non CM/ECF participants via telefax. s/Drusilla Mercer DRUSILLA MERCER Paralegal Specialist United States Attorneys Office 700 Stewart Street, Suite 5220 Seattle, Washington 98101-1271 Phone: 206/553-7970 FAX: 206/553-4440 E-mail: dru.mercer@usdoj.gov

Skeeter Manos Sentencing Memo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Skeeter Manos Sentencing Memo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 1 of 15

The Honorable Robert J. Bryan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SKEETER TIMOTHY MANOS, ) ) Defendant. )

No. CR12- 5091RJB GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 2 of 15

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 2 No. CR12-5091RJB

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 3 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 4 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 5 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 6 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 7 of 15

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 7 No. CR12-5091RJB

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 8 of 15

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 8 No. CR12-5091RJB

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 9 of 15

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 9 No. CR12-5091RJB

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 10 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 11 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 12 of 15

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 12 No. CR12-5091RJB

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 13 of 15

The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparity

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 14 of 15

Case 3:12-cr-05091-RJB Document 21

Filed 06/22/12 Page 15 of 15

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM/MANOS- 15 No. CR12-5091RJB

You might also like