paul tanaka sentencing memo

7/26/2019 Paul Tanaka Sentencing Memo

1/23

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

EI LEEN M. DECKERUni t ed St at es At t or neyLAWRENCE S. MI DDLETONAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyChi ef , Cr i mi nal Di vi si onBRANDON D. FOX ( Cal . Bar No. 290409)

Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyChi ef , Publ i c Cor r upt i on & Ci vi l Ri ght s Sect i onLI ZABETH A. RHODES ( Cal . Bar No. 155299)Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyChi ef , Gener al Cr i mes Sect i onEDDI E A. J AUREGUI ( Cal . Bar No. 297986)Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neyGeneral Cr i mes Sect i on

1500/ 1200 Uni t ed St ates Cour t house312 Nor t h Spr i ng St r eetLos Angel es, Cal i f or ni a 90012Tel ephone: ( 213) 894- 0284/ 3541/ 4849Facsi mi l e: ( 213) 894- 7631

E- mai l : Br andon. Fox@usdoj . govLi zabeth. Rhodes@usdoj . govEddi e. J aur egui @usdoj . gov

At t or neys f or Pl ai nt i f fUNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA

UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DI STRI CT OF CALI FORNI A

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Pl ai nt i f f ,

v.

PAUL TANAKA,

Def endant .

No. CR 15- 255- PA

GOVERNMENT S POSI TI ON RE:SENTENCI NG OF DEFENDANT PAULTANAKA

Hear i ng Date: J une 27, 2016Hear i ng Ti me: 8: 30 a. m.Locat i on: Cour t r oom of t he

Hon. Per cy Anderson

Pl ai nt i f f Uni t ed St at es of Amer i ca, by and t hr ough i t s counsel

of r ecor d, t he Uni t ed St at es At t or ney f or t he Cent r al Di st r i ct of

Cal i f or ni a and Assi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys Br andon D. Fox,

Li zabet h A. Rhodes and Eddi e A. J aur egui , her eby f i l es i t s sent enci ng

posi t i on pur suant t o Feder al Rul es of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e

Rul e 32( b) ( 6) ( B) wi t h r egar d t o def endant Paul Tanaka.

Case 2:15-cr-00255-PA Document 169 Filed 06/06/16 Page 1 of 23 Page ID #:1386


2/23

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Thi s sent enci ng posi t i on paper i s based upon t he at t ached

memor andum of poi nt s and aut hor i t i es, t he t r i al t est i mony and

exhi bi t s, f i l es and r ecor ds i n t hi s case, and such f ur t her evi dence

and ar gument as t he Cour t may permi t .

Dat ed: J une 6, 2016 Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

Respect f ul l y submi t t ed,

EI LEEN M. DECKERUni t ed St at es At t or ney

LAWRENCE S. MI DDLETONAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or ney

Chi ef , Cr i mi nal Di vi si on

/ s /Br andon D. FoxLi zabeth A. RhodesEddi e A. J aur eguiAssi st ant Uni t ed St at es At t or neys

At t or neys f or Pl ai nt i f fUNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA



3/23

i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DESCRI PTI ON PAGE

I . I NTRODUCTI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I I .

HI STORY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

I I I . STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

A. Def endant Promoted t he Cul t ur e that Led t o Deput yAbuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

B. Def endant Learns of Federal I nvest i gat i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

C. Def endant Er upt s Af t er t he FBI I nt er vi ews Br own. . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Def endant s Pol i cy t o Keep t he FBI away f r omMen s Cent r al J ai l i s I mpl ement ed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Fur t her Conceal ment of Br own af t er Wr i t i s I ssued. . . . 5

D. Conspi rator s Tamper wi th Wi tnesses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

E. The Sher i f f s Depar t ment Seeks a Super i or Cour t Or dert o Obt ai n FBI Records and I nf ormat i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

F. The Sher i f f s Depar t ment Thr eatens t o Ar r est FBISpeci al Agent Leah Mar x. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

I V. ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

A.

Def endant s Of f ense Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1. The Base Of f ense Level I s Appr opr i at e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2. The Al t er i ng or Fabr i cat i ng Recor ds EnhancementI s Appr opr i at e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3. The Four Level Adj ust ment f or Rol e I s Appr opr i at ef or Def endant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

4. Def endant Abused a Pos i t i on of Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

5.

I n Addi t i on t o t he Enhancement s and Adj ust ment sAr t i cul at ed i n t he PSR, t he Cour t Shoul d I mpose aTwo- Level Adj ust ment f or Def endant s Fur t herObst r uct i on. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

B. Sect i on 3553 Fact or s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

1. The Nat ure and Ci r cumst ances of t he Of f ense, t heSer i ousness of t he Of f ense, and J ust Puni shment . . . . . 14

2. Hi st or y and Char acter i st i cs of t he Def endant . . . . . . . . 15



4/23

i i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

3. Promote Respect f or t he Law and Af f ord AdequateDet er rence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Avoi di ng Unwanted Di spar i t y. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

V. CONCLUSI ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18



5/23

i i i

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

DESCRI PTI ON PAGE

FEDERAL CASES

Uni t ed St at es v. Ar i as- Vi l l anueva,998 F. 2d 1491, 1512- 13 ( 9t h Ci r . ) ,cer t . deni ed, 114 S. Ct . 573 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Uni t ed St at es v. Bakht i ar i ,714 F. 3d 1057, 1059- 62 ( 8t h Ci r . 2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Uni t ed St at es v. Dunni gan,507 U. S. 87, 95 ( 1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez,499 Fed. Appx. 904, 908- 09 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 12

FEDERAL STATUTES

18 U. S. C. 1503. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

18 U. S. C. 1621. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

18 U. S. C. 371. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES

U. S. S. G. 2A2. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

U. S. S. G. 2J 1. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 12

U. S. S. G. 2X3. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11

U. S. S. G. 3B1. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

U. S. S. G. 3B1. 3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12



6/23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Af t er sever al t r i al s and t ens of convi ct i ons of Los Angel es

Count y Sher i f f s of f i ci al s, one t hi ng i s abundant l y cl ear : Def endant

Paul Tanaka i s r esponsi bl e not onl y f or obst r uct i ng j ust i ce, but al so

f or f ost er i ng t he cul t ur e t hat l ed t o t he si gni f i cant pr obl ems i n t he

Los Angel es Count y j ai l s. 1 Thi s Cour t shoul d sent ence hi m t o 60

mont hs i mpr i sonment .

Whi l e def endant cl ai med at hi s and t hr ee pr evi ous t r i al s t hat he

had onl y l i mi t ed i nvol vement i n t he conspi r acy, t he evi dence showed

i nst ead t hat he was t he ri ngl eader f r om t he begi nni ng.

II. HISTORY

On Apr i l 6, 2016, a j ur y f ound def endant gui l t y of bot h char ges

agai nst hi m i n t he i ndi ctment . Speci f i cal l y, i t convi cted def endant

of : ( 1) conspi r i ng t o obst r uct j ust i ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U. S. C.

371 ( Count One) ; and ( 2) obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, i n vi ol at i on of 18

U. S. C. 1503 ( Count Two) . Sent enci ng i s set f or J une 27, 2016, at

8: 30 a. m.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Defendant Promoted the Culture that Led to Deputy Abuse

Def endant was an execut i ve wi t h the Los Angel es Count y Sher i f f s

Depar t ment f or sever al year s, st ar t i ng i n 2005 as Assi st ant Sher i f f .

I n J une 2011, def endant became Under sher i f f , a r ol e t hat al l owed hi m

1 Def endant i s t he ni nt h per son convi ct ed of cr i mi nal conductbased on the hi di ng of Ant hony Br own, t he wi t ness t amper i ng, and thet hr eat ened ar r est of an FBI Speci al Agent . ( Shoul d t hi s Cour t acceptt he Feder al Rul e of Cr i mi nal Pr ocedur e 11( c) ( 1) ( C) pl ea of Ler oyBaca, t he f or mer Sher i f f wi l l be t he t ent h. ) Ni ne ot her deput i eshave been convi ct ed of of f enses r el ated t o t he abuse of i nmates and avi si t or t o t he j ai l s. Anot her deput y, Gi l ber t Mi chel , pl ed gui l t y t oaccept i ng br i bes and has admi t t ed t hat he abused i nmates.



7/23

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t o over see t he day- t o- day oper at i ons of t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment .

Dur i ng hi s t i me as an execut i ve, def endant t hr eat ened t o di sci pl i ne

super vi sor s who f r equent l y r ef er r ed deput i es t o I nt er nal Af f ai r s,

t r ansf err ed Capt ai ns who t r i ed t o reduce deput y abuse and br eak up

cl i ques, i nst r uct ed deput i es t o wor k i n t he gr ay ar ea of l aw

enf or cement , and expr essed hi s desi r e t o gut I nt er nal Af f ai r s.

Def endant s act i ons caused deput i es t o bel i eve t hat t hey coul d act

wi t h i mpuni t y, whi ch, unf or t unat el y, t hey di d much t oo f r equent l y.

B. Defendant Learns of Federal Investigation

Begi nni ng i n 2010, t he f eder al gover nment began i nvest i gat i ng

t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment based on al l egat i ons of wi despread deput y

abuse of i nmat es i n t he Los Angel es Count y j ai l s. As def endant knew,

f or year s t her e had been al l egat i ons of r ampant ci vi l r i ght s

vi ol at i ons i n t he j ai l s .

I n August 2011, t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment r ecover ed a phone f r om

Ant hony Br own, an i nmate at Men s Cent r al J ai l . On August 18, 2011,

def endant spoke t o t hen- Sher i f f Ler oy Baca on t he t el ephone. Baca

t ol d def endant t hat t he head of t he Feder al Bur eau of I nvest i gat i on

i n Los Angel es had i nf ormed Baca t hat t he phone was part of a f ederal

ci vi l r i ght s i nvest i gat i on. Def endant t hen had hi s ai de set up

meet i ngs f or t he ver y next day t o di scuss t he si t uat i on.

On Fr i day, August 19, 2011, def endant hel d a meet i ng wi t h

Li eut enant Gr eg Thompson, Deputy Gerard Smi t h, and Deputy Mi ckeyManzo. On Satur day, August 20, 2011, def endant part i ci pated i n a

meet i ng wi t h Baca, Thompson, Smi t h, Manzo, Capt ai n Wi l l i amTom

Car ey, Li eut enant St eve Leavi ns, and ot her s. Dur i ng t hese t wo

meet i ngs, def endant was t ol d t hat i nmate Ant hony Br own had admi t t ed



8/23

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t o bei ng an i nf or mant i n a f eder al i nvest i gat i on concer ni ng deput y

abuse and cor r upt i on wi t hi n t he j ai l s.

Def endant s r eact i on was i mmedi ate, and unf ort unatel y was not

sur pr i si ng gi ven hi s past act i ons: he bl amed t he ent i t y i nvest i gat i ng

t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment . Def endant excl ai med, F**k t he FBI , whi ch

set t he t one f or t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment act i ons whi ch he woul d

cont r ol over t he next s i x weeks. Baca, meanwhi l e, st at ed t hat he

want ed t he Sher i f f s Depart ment t o i nvest i gate how t he phone was

br ought i nt o t he j ai l and f or t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment t o keep t he

i nmat e secur e and i n i t s cust ody.

Baca and def endant l ef t t he r oom f or a f ew mi nut es. Onl y

def endant r et ur ned, st at i ng t hat Baca had put hi m i n char ge of t he

oper at i on. Def endant t ol d t he ot her s t hat t he FBI was not t o be

gi ven access t o Ant hony Br own, t he i nmate- i nf ormant . Def endant

st at ed t hat t hi s was one of t he most i mpor t ant i nvest i gat i ons

i nvol vi ng t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment i n i t s 160 year hi st or y.

C.

Defendant Erupts After the FBI Interviews Brown

On August 23, 2011, t he FBI vi si t ed Men s Cent r al J ai l t o

i nt ervi ew Br own. A deput y, who was unaware of def endant s order t o

keep t he FBI away f r om Br own, al l owed t he agent s t o i nt er vi ew hi m.

Later , Thompson, Carey, Smi t h and Manzo r eport ed t o def endant s

of f i ce, wher e def endant ber at ed t hem f or l et t i ng t he FBI meet wi t h

Br own cont r ar y t o hi s or der s and to Thompson s guar ant ee t hat i twoul d not happen. I t was i n t hi s meet i ng t hat t he co- conspi r at or s,

i ncl udi ng def endant , di scussed movi ng Br own out of Men s Cent r al J ai l

i n or der t o keep hi m away f r om t he FBI . Def endant r ei t er at ed t hat

t hi s was one of t he most i mpor t ant i nvest i gat i ons i nvol vi ng t he

Sher i f f s Depar t ment i n i t s hi st or y.



9/23

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Manzo and Car ey ret urned t o MCJ t o see wher e t hey coul d move

Br own. They deci ded t o t ake Br own t o a medi cal ward wher e t he

Sher i f f s Depar t ment t r eat ed i nmat es wi t h i nf ect i ous di seases.

Begi nni ng August 23, 2011, OSJ deput i es, i ncl udi ng Smi t h and Manzo,

st ood guar d out si de of Br own s cel l .

1. Def endant s Pol i cy t o Keep t he FBI away f r om Men sCent r al J ai l i s I mpl ement ed

On August 24, 2011, Manzo dr af t ed a pol i cy based on def endant s

August 20t h or der s t o keep t he FBI out of t he j ai l s. Manzo f or war ded

t hi s pol i cy t o Thompson, who emai l ed a si mi l ar ver si on t o def endant s

assi st ant . Thompson s emai l asked f or def endant s appr oval t o put

t hi s out cust ody wi de. Ver bal not i f i cat i on i sn t wor ki ng as wel l as

I t hought i t woul d. The emai l t hen det ai l ed t he dr af t pol i cy:

Ef f ect i ve i mmedi at el y and unt i l f ur t her not i ce, al l FBIr equest s f or i nt er vi ews wi l l be appr oved by Under - Sher i f fTanaka. I f t he FBI r equest s access f or any r eason t o yourf aci l i t y, get t he f ol l owi ng i nf or mat i on:

Name and Badge or I D Number Pl ace of Assi gnment - i . e. Speci al Pr obl ems, Robber y

Det ai l , et c. Cont act Phone Number and emai l address . I nmat e name and booki ng number f or who t hey want t o

i nt er vi ew. Case Number or t ype of case bei ng i nvest i gated. Fut ur e dat e and t i me t hey ar e avai l abl e t o i nt er vi ew

The above i nf or mat i on wi l l be document ed by t he Faci l i t y sMai l Cont r ol and ver i f i ed by the Faci l i t y s Wat ch Ser geantand/ or Watch Commander . The i nf ormat i on wi l l be f orwarded,vi a emai l , t o Li eut enant Gr eg Thompson, of Cust odyI nvest i gat i ve Ser vi ces Uni t , f or r evi ew.

Li eut enant Thompson wi l l be r esponsi bl e f or not i f yi ng t heUnder sher i f f s of f i ce and obt ai ni ng appr oval . Onceappr oved, Li eut enant Thompson wi l l not i f y t he f aci l i t y andagent of t he appr oved dat e and t i me f or t he i nt er vi ew.

( emphasi s added. )

Def endant s assi st ant r esponded by aski ng Thompson t o gi ve hi m a

cal l . A f ew hour s l at er , Thompson sent an emai l aski ng i f Mr .



10/23

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Tanaka [ was] goi ng t o make t he changes on t he FBI not i ce t o f aci l i t y

commander s, or wi l l he be sat i sf i ed i f I r emove al l r ef er ence t o hi m

or t he execut i ves? Def endant s assi st ant r esponded t hat def endant

sai d t hat you were goi ng t o make changes t o i t .

2. Fur t her Conceal ment of Br own af t er Wr i t i s I ssued

On August 25, 2011, t he Di st r i ct Cour t i ssued a wr i t f or t he

t est i mony of Br own bef ore the f ederal gr and j ur y on Sept ember 7,

2011. Af t er r ecei vi ng t he wr i t , a l i eut enant and t hr ee deput i es

approached empl oyees at t he I nmat e Records Cent er and asked t o have

Br own r el eased f r om t he j ai l s comput er syst em. The deput y and

head r ecords cl er k assi gned t o I RC i nf or med t he deput i es t hat t hey

needed a cour t or der t o do so. The l i eut enant i nf or med t he cl er k

t hat t he Capt ai n, t he Commander and the Undersher i f f ( def endant

Tanaka) al l knew what was happeni ng. When t he deputy st i l l bal ked at

t he i dea, one of t he ot her deput i es omi nousl y asked, Ar e you goi ng

t o say no t o Tanaka? The deput y answer ed, Yes. Ul t i mat el y, t he

head cl erk si gned out Br own s r ecor ds j acket and made the comput er

system r ef l ect t hat Br own was r el eased.

Over t he next sever al days, t he conspi r at or s changed Br own s

name on a regul ar basi s, i nput f al se i nf or mat i on i n t he Sher i f f s

Depar t ment s r ecor ds, and cl ai med that t hat Br own ref used t o pr ovi de

hi s f i nger pr i nt s and soci al secur i t y number . Br own s al i ases

i ncl uded J ohn Rodr i guez, Kevi n Ki ng, and Chr i s J ohnson. The conspi r at or s t ook addi t i onal measur es t o i nter f er e wi t h t he

f eder al i nvest i gat i on. On August 25, 2011, Thompson emai l ed capt ai ns

and oper at i ons l i eut enant s t o i nf or m t hem of t he new pol i cy t hat al l

FBI r equest s f or i nmate i nt ervi ews woul d have t o be appr oved and



11/23

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

woul d have t o t ake pl ace at Men s Cent r al J ai l t her e coul d be no

i nt er vi ews at any ot her l ocat i ons.

On August 26, Thompson communi cat ed wi t h other s about what t o do

i f t he FBI showed up at Men s Cent r al J ai l wi t h a possi bl e Cour t

Or der demandi ng Br own s pr oduct i on t o t he f ederal government .

Thompson and t he ot her s deci ded t hat t hey woul d accept t he cour t

or der i f f or ced, but woul d not r el ease t he i nmat e. I nst ead, t hey

woul d have a count y at t orney on vacat i on f or a mont h r evi ew t he

cour t order bef ore r el easi ng Br own. Thompson agr eed t o put a note on

Br own s cel l door t o t hat ef f ect . The capt ai n at Men s Cent r al J ai l

emai l ed hi s l i eut enant s and sergeant s:

I f any f ederal l aw enf orcement agency comes t o MCJ wi t h ani nmat e removal or der , vi si t at i on or der , or ANY OTHER or derof t he cour t you shal l :

- Recei ve t he or der and advi se the f eder al of f i cer t hatbef ore you can pr oceed, you have t o submi t t he or der t ot he Depart ment s l egal advi sor f or r evi ew. DO NOTRELEASE THE I NMATE OR ALLOW CONTACT.

( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) .

The co- conspi r at or s i nf or med def endant t hat t hey wer e goi ng t o

move Br own out of Men s Cent r al J ai l and t ake hi m t o a st at i on j ai l

( one t hat woul d not have t he aut hor i t y t o al l ow t he f eder al

government t o i nt ervi ew Br own, based on t he August 25 pol i cy) .

I ndeed, on August 26, 2011, t he co- conspi r ators moved Br own to t he

Sher i f f s Depar t ment s San Di mas st at i on j ai l .

D. Conspirators Tamper with Witnesses

On August 30, 2011, def endant made a r are appearance at Men s

Cent r al J ai l , wher e Leavi ns, Cr ai g and Long wer e speaki ng t o deput i es

who may have been i n cont act wi t h t he FBI . Fi r st , t hey spoke t o



12/23

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Gi l ber t Mi chel , t he deput y who was t he t ar get of t he FBI under cover

oper at i on r egar di ng t he phone. Whi l e pr esent at Men s Cent r al J ai l ,

def endant r ecei ved br i ef i ngs about t hese i nt er vi ews.

Leavi ns, Cr ai g, and Long t ol d Mi chel he had been mani pul ated

by t he FBI . Af t er Mi chel t ol d Leavi ns, Cr ai g, and Long t hat t he FBI

was t r yi ng t o get i nf or mat i on f r om hi m about br ut al i t y i nsi de t he

j ai l s, t he conspi r at or s or der ed Mi chel not t o t al k t o t he FBI . Cr ai g

r ei t er at ed that t he FBI was t hr eat eni ng and mani pul at i ng hi m:

i t pi sses me of f . . . we r e al l par t of t hi s Depar t mentand we r e one bi g happy dysf unct i onal f ami l y, and f ucki n

FBI i s gonna come to your house and sur pr i se you at yourhome and i nvade the sanct i t y of your home and come her e andt al k a gang l oad of shi t t o you and t hr eat en you. . . . Andt hen t hey ar e gonna f ucki n mani pul at e you l i ke you r e apuppet ? I don t t hi nk so.

That same day, Leavi ns, Cr ai g and Long i nter vi ewed Deputy

Wi l l i amDavi d Cour son, who had unknowi ngl y pr ovi ded t he FBI wi t h

i nf or mat i on on abuse at Men s Cent r al J ai l . The co- conspi r at or s once

agai n or der ed Cour son not t o t al k t o t he FBI . Cr ai g showed t hei r

t ot al di sr egar d f or any l egal pr ocess when he sai d t o Cour son:

I f someone st art s t hr eat eni ng you wi t h a subpoena or anyot her nonsense, I want you t o cal l me r i ght away.

* * *

[ a] Federal Gr and J ur y Subpoena . . . Some nonsense l i ket hat st ar t s, you f eel t hey ar e t r yi ng t o i nt i mi dat e you,

bul l y you, bl ackmai l you, coer ce you, you cal l me and I l lcal l hi m [ Leavi ns] and we wi l l go f r om t her e.

Ear l i er i n t he day, Leavi ns t ol d Li eut enant Mi chael Bor nman, who

was st at i oned at MCJ , t o l eave because Tanaka was goi ng t o be t here

t hat day ( as Leavi ns knew, Tanaka di d not l i ke Bornman) . When

Bornman r etur ned, Leavi ns i nf ormed hi m t hat Tanaka was i n charge of



13/23

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

t he operat i on and t hat Tanaka was goi ng t o make sur e that t he f ederal

government woul d not get i t s hands on Br own.

E. The Sheriffs Department Seeks a Superior Court Order toObtain FBI Records and Information

On Sept ember 8, 2011, Cr ai g sought a Super i or Cour t order t hat

woul d have pur por t edl y compel l ed t he FBI t o t ur n over i t s r ecor ds

r el at ed t o t he FBI s i nvest i gat i on of t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment .

Def endant s ai de asked Leavi ns, Af t er t he document get s

si gned . . . , woul d you pl ease make a copy f or Mr . Tanaka? Leavi ns

r esponded, You got i t . The pr oposed or der sought i nf or mat i on about

t he FBI i nvest i gat i ons, i nvest i gat i ve r epor t s and t he agent s t r ue

i dent i t i es. J udge J ohn Tor r i bi o deni ed t he or der and wr ot e,

Deni ed - Cour t has no j ur i sdi ct i on over any f eder al agency.

F. The Sheriffs Department Threatens to Arrest FBI SpecialAgent Leah Marx

Undet er r ed, t he ver y next day, Sept ember 9, 2011, Cr ai g l ef t a

voi cemai l message on an FBI phone he bel i eved bel onged t o t he FBI

case agent , Leah Marx. 2 Cr ai g st ated on t he message t hat Speci al

Agent Mar x was named as a suspect and of f ered t o meet her as a

pr of essi onal cour t esy . . . pr i or t o me si gni ng a decl ar at i on i n

suppor t of an ar r est war r ant .

On Sept ember 25, 2011, t he Los Angel es Ti mes publ i shed an

ar t i cl e st at i ng t hat [ f ] eder al aut hor i t i es ar e i nvest i gat i ng

al l egat i ons of i nmat e beat i ngs and ot her mi sconduct by deput i es i n

Los Angel es Count y j ai l s, wi t h FBI agent s goi ng so f ar as t o sneak a

cel l phone t o an i nmat e t o get r epor t s f r om i nsi de. Def endant

2 I n pr ovi di ng Cr ai g wi t h t he t el ephone number f or Speci alAgent Marx, Br own swi t ched t he l ast t wo di gi t s of her phone number.



14/23

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

f or war ded a l i nk to t hi s ar t i cl e and anot her one f r om t he Washi ngt on

Post t o Car ey and Leavi ns. The Washi ngt on Post ar t i cl e st at ed t hat

t he U. S. Depar t ment of J ust i ce was boost [ i ng] act i vi t y t o pol i ce t he

pol i ce. Leavi ns responded, I f i gur ed t hat was the mot i vat i on.

Def endant r epl i ed t hat t he ar t i cl e showed t he or der s t o i nvest i gat e

t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment wer e comi ng f r om t he t op of t he Depar t ment

of J us t i ce.

The next eveni ng, September 26, 2011, Cr ai g and Long approached

Speci al Agent Marx out si de her home. Speci al Agent Marx t ol d t hem

t hat she was not goi ng t o make any st atement s. Cr ai g t hen i nf ormed

Speci al Agent Marx t hat she was a named suspect i n a f el ony

compl ai nt and asked whether she had r ecei ved hi s message. Speci al

Agent Mar x sai d she woul d pass t he i nf or mat i on al ong t o the Assi st ant

Di r ect or i n Char ge of t he FBI . Cr ai g t hen st at ed t he he was i n t he

pr ocess of swear i ng out a decl ar at i on f or an ar r est war r ant f or her .

Shor t l y ther eaf t er , t hen- Super vi sor y Speci al Agent Car l os Nar r o

and Speci al Agent Ter esa Tambubol on, cal l ed Long. Narr o st ated t hat

Speci al Agent Mar x, i ndi cat ed t o me t hat you guys i ndi cat ed t o her

t hat t her e s goi ng t o be a war r ant f or her ar r est ? Long r esponded,

Ther e s goi ng t o be. Nar r o asked Long, Does t he Sher i f f know

t hi s? Long r epl i ed, The Sher i f f knows t hi s, si r . When Nar r o

asked what t he charges woul d be, Long t ol d hi m he woul d have to

speak t o t he Under sher i f f , and t hat s Mr . Paul Tanaka. Nar r o asked,Do you have any i dea when t he war r ant s goi ng t o come out ? Long

r esponded, I t coul d be t omor r ow, si r . You r e goi ng t o have t o t al k

t o t he Under sher i f f . Af t er t he cal l ended, t he r ecor di ng devi ce

capt ur ed l aught er and Long t el l i ng Cr ai g, They r e scar ed. They r e



15/23

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

l i ke, do you know when . . . t he war r ant . . . Cr ai g i nf or med Long,

You r e st i l l r ol l i ng. Long t hen st opped t he r ecor di ng devi ce.

IV. ARGUMENT

The present ence r epor t ( PSR) accurat el y descr i bed t he of f ense

and t he Sent enci ng Gui del i nes appl i cat i on, l eavi ng one enhancement

f or t he di scr et i on of t he Cour t . As shown bel ow, t hat enhancement

an addi t i onal t wo- l evel enhancement under U. S. S. G. 3C1. 1 f or

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce i s appr opr i at e as def endant commi t t ed a

si gni f i cant f ur t her obst r ucti on t hr ough hi s f al se t est i mony at t r i al .

Accor di ngl y, def endant has a t ot al of f ense l evel of 24 and a

r esul t i ng gui del i ne r ange of 51 t o 63 mont hs. For t he r easons set

f or t h bel ow, a sent ence of 60 mont hs i s appr opr i at e.

A. Defendants Offense Level

Def endant s of f ense l evel i s 24:

Base of f ense l evel ( 2J 1. 2( a) ) 14

Al t er at i on or f abr i cat i on of r ecor ds

or ot her wi se extensi vei n scope ( 2J 1. 2( b) ( 3) ) +2

Or gani zer / Leader ( 3B1. 1( a) ) +4

Abuse of posi t i on of t r ust ( 3B1. 3) +2

Obst r uct i on of j ust i ce ( 3C1. 1) +2_____________________________________________________________Tot al Of f ense Level 24

1. The Base Of f ense Level I s Appr opr i at e

The PSR appropr i at el y f ound t he base of f ense l evel t o be 14

pur suant t o 2J 1. 2( a) . ( See PSR 64. ) Or di nar i l y, 2J 1. 2( a)

shoul d be used i f i t r esul t s i n a gr eat er of f ense l evel t han woul d an

appl i cat i on of 2X3. 1 ( accessory af t er t he f act ) . The accessor y

af t er t he f act cal cul at i on woul d be based on t he under l yi ng of f ense



16/23

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

gui del i ne of 2A2. 2. The gover nment bel i eves, however , t hat t he PSR

appr opr i at el y appl i ed onl y 2J 1. 2 wi t hout r espect t o 2X3. 1 because

t he def endant was obst r uct i ng a ci vi l r i ght s i nvest i gat i on gener al l y,

and not an i nvest i gat i on i nt o one par t i cul ar i nci dent . As a r esul t ,

t he appl i cat i on of 2X3. 1 and 2A2. 2 i s not st r ai ght f or war d si nce

t hose gui del i nes pr ovi si ons ar e i nci dent - speci f i c. Thi s r esul t s i n

no pr ej udi ce t o def endant because t he Cour t i s t o use t he gr eat er

of f ense l evel bet ween 2J 1. 2 and 2X3. 1.

2. The Al t er i ng or Fabr i cat i ng Recor ds Enhancement I sAppr opr i at e

A t wo- l evel enhancement i s appr opr i at e under 2J 1. 2( b) ( 3) f or

t wo r easons. Fi r st , under 2J 1. 2( b) ( 3) ( A) , t he conspi r acy i nvol ved

t he al t er at i on and f abr i cat i on of a subst ant i al number of r ecor ds and

document s i n hi di ng Br own f r om t he f eder al gover nment . Speci f i cal l y,

t he conspi r acy i ncl uded: ( 1) causi ng t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment s

comput er syst em t o f al sel y show t hat Br own was i n pr ot ect i ve cust ody

i n cel l bl ock 1751 when, i n f act , he was on t he 8000 f l oor ; ( 2)

causi ng the comput er syst emt o f al sel y show t hat Br own had been

r el eased f r om i t s cust ody; and ( 3) causi ng t he cr eat i on of comput er

r ecor ds, booki ng r ecor ds, and r ecor ds j acket s f or Br own under f ake

names, i ncl udi ng J ohn Rodr i guez, Kevi n Ki ng, and Chr i s J ohnson.

Second, under 2J 1. 2( b) ( 3) ( C) , t he of f ense was ext ensi ve i n

scope si nce i t i nvol ved not onl y hi di ng an i nmat e, but al so t amper i ngwi t h wi t nesses and t hr eat eni ng t he ar r est of an FBI agent on what

woul d have been bogus char ges. 3 Fur t her , t here were many

3 An enhancement under 2J 1. 2( b) ( 3) ( C) i s consi st ent wi t h t hef ew cases that have addr essed t hat pr ovi si on of t he gui del i nes. SeeUni t ed St at es v. Bakht i ar i , 714 F. 3d 1057, 1059- 62 ( 8t h Ci r . 2013)

(footnote contd on next page)



17/23

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

par t i ci pant s i n t he obst r uct i on and i t l ast ed si x weeks, whi ch makes

t he of f ense unl i ke t he nor mal di scr et e nat ur e of obst r uct i on of

j ust i ce of f enses.

3.

The Four Level Adj ust ment f or Rol e I s Appr opr i at e f orDef endant

A f our l evel enhancement under 3B1. 1( a) i s appr opr i ate because

def endant was a l eader of t he cr i mi nal act i vi t y t hat i nvol ved f i ve or

mor e par t i ci pant s. Def endant di r ect ed ot her s t o commi t t he cr i me,

di ct at ed how i t woul d be done ( e. g. , keepi ng t he FBI out of t he j ai l s

and away f r om Br own) , and had co- conspi r at or s r epor t i ng back t o hi m.

4. Def endant Abused a Posi t i on of Tr ust

Def endant s of f ense l evel shoul d be enhanced by t wo l evel s

because he abused a posi t i on of publ i c t r ust under 3B1. 3. As a l aw

enf or cement of f i cer gener al l y, and an execut i ve wi t hi n t he Sher i f f s

Depar t ment speci f i cal l y, def endant had subst ant i al di scr et i onar y

j udgment t hat was or di nar i l y gi ven consi der abl e def er ence. He r an

t he day- t o- day oper at i ons of t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment and used t hat

posi t i on t o f aci l i t at e t he obstr uct i on.

5. I n Addi t i on t o t he Enhancement s and Adj ust ment sAr t i cul ated i n t he PSR, t he Cour t Shoul d I mpose a Two-Level Adj ust ment f or Def endant s Fur t her Obst r uct i on

Fi nal l y, def endant s of f ense l evel shoul d be i ncr eased by t wo

l evel s under 3C1. 1. Pur suant t o Appl i cat i on Not e 7, t he adj ust ment

i s onl y war r ant ed when a def endant i s convi ct ed of an of f ense cover edby 2J 1. 2 i f t he def endant commi t t ed a si gni f i cant f ur t her

obst r uct i on. I n Uni t ed St at es v. Dunni gan, 507 U. S. 87, 95 ( 1993) ,

t he Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat where a def endant obj ect s t o an

and Uni t ed St at es v. Rodr i guez, 499 Fed. Appx. 904, 908- 09 ( 11t h Ci r .2012) .



18/23

13

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

enhancement f or obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, t he di st r i ct cour t must

r evi ew t he evi dence and make i ndependent f i ndi ngs necessary t o

est abl i sh a wi l l f ul i mpedi ment t o t he admi ni st r at i on of j ust i ce, or

obst r uct i on of j ust i ce, or an at t empt t o do t he same, under t he

per j ur y def i ni t i on set out at 18 U. S. C. 1621. By t hat def i ni t i on,

a wi t ness t est i f yi ng under oat h commi t s per j ur y i f he gi ves f al se

t est i mony concer ni ng a mat er i al mat t er wi t h t he wi l l f ul i nt ent t o

pr ovi de f al se t est i mony, r at her t han as a resul t of conf usi on,

mi st ake or f aul t y memor y. See al so Uni t ed St at es v. Ar i as-

Vi l l anueva, 998 F. 2d 1491, 1512- 13 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) .

The Ni nth Ci r cui t Model J ury I nst r uct i ons provi de t hat i n or der

f or a def endant t o be f ound gui l t y of per j ur y, t he gover nment must

pr ove t hat : ( 1) t he def endant t est i f i ed under oat h; ( 2) t he t est i mony

was f al se; ( 3) t he f al se t est i mony was mat er i al t o t he mat t er s bef or e

t he cour t ; and ( 4) t he def endant acted wi l l f ul l y, t hat i s

del i ber at el y and wi t h knowl edge t hat t he t est i mony was f al se. See

Ni nt h Ci r . Model J ur y I nst r uct i on 8. 135.

That cer t ai nl y occur r ed dur i ng t he t r i al , when def endant

commi t t ed per j ur y dur i ng hi s t est i mony. ( See, e. g. , PSR 78. ) As

shown bel ow, t he Cour t shoul d hol d t hat t hi s enhancement appl i es by

speci f i cal l y f i ndi ng t hat def endant commi t t ed per j ur y by f al sel y

t est i f yi ng t hat : ( 1) he coul d not pr ovi de updat es t o Baca about t he

oper at i on because def endant wasn t handl i ng the i nvest i gat i on ori nvol ved i n a way that I coul d pr ovi de hi m t he answer s t hat he

needed; and ( 2) as a r esul t , he woul d have t he i nvest i gat or cal l

Baca t o pr ovi de Baca wi t h updat es. ( Ex. A at 80: 04- 8, 81: 09- 17. )

As t he evi dence showed at t r i al , def endant was i n char ge of t he

Sher i f f s Depar t ment s oper at i on and was r ecei vi ng f r equent



19/23

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

br i ef i ngs. He or der ed t he FBI t o be kept away f r om Br own whi l e at

MCJ . When t hat f ai l ed t o wor k, he was i nvol ved i n t he deci si on t o

move Br own t o a st at i on j ai l and t o have deput i es st and guard over

Br own. Dur i ng t he wi t ness tamper i ng of deput i es at MCJ , def endant

was r ecei vi ng br i ef i ngs on what hi s co- conspi r at or s had l ear ned f r om

t hose deput i es. Def endant was awar e t hat t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment

was at t empt i ng t o obt ai n t he FBI i nvest i gat i ve r ecor ds t hr ough a

pr oposed cour t order . Def endant was al so aware t hat hi s co-

conspi r at or s wer e goi ng t o t hr eat en t o ar r est Speci al Agent Mar x,

despi t e under st andi ng t hat t her e was no pr obabl e cause t o ar r est her .

Fur t her , as t he phone r ecor ds i nt r oduced at t r i al showed, whi l e

t her e wer e numer ous cal l s bet ween def endant and hi s co- conspi r at or s,

t here was onl y one cal l between Baca and any of t hese co-

conspi r at or s. Def endant di d not have t he co- conspi r at or s cal l Baca

because def endant was i n charge and coul d pr ovi de Baca wi t h any

answer s he needed.

B.

Section 3553 Factors

1. The Nat ure and Ci r cumst ances of t he Of f ense, t heSer i ousness of t he Of f ense, and J ust Puni shment

The har m def endant caused t o t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment , l aw

enf orcement general l y, and t hose who were subj ect ed t o deput y abuse

i s i mmeasur abl e. Def endant obst r uct ed a ser i ous and wi de- r angi ng

i nvest i gat i on i nt o a pat t er n of ci vi l r i ght s abuses and cor r upt i onwi t hi n t he Los Angel es Count y j ai l s. He chose as hi s co- conspi r at or s

t hose who wer e or di nar i l y supposed t o i nvest i gat e t he same t ype of

cr i mes t hat t hey began cover i ng up.

As t hi s Cour t i s awar e, t her e was a pat t er n of abuse i n t he

j ai l s. But t he i nvest i gat i on i nto each i nci dent i s di f f i cul t , even



20/23

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

i n t he absence of any obst r uct i on, because t he vi ct i ms are i nmat es

whose cr edi bi l i t y can easi l y be cal l ed i nt o quest i on. Def endant s

obst r uct i on creat ed a gr eat r i sk of har m t o i mpor t ant soci et al

i nt er est s because the obst r uct i on was desi gned t o f r ust r at e a f eder al

i nvest i gat i on i nt o many ser i ous ci vi l r i ght s of f enses.

Def endant at t empt ed t o assi st hi s co- conspi r at or s, whi l e at t he

same t i me conceal i ng hi s conduct , by mi ni mi zi ng hi s knowl edge and

conduct i n t hr ee t r i al s t hat occur r ed i n 2014. He t hen at t empt ed t o

f ur t her obst r uct j ust i ce by t est i f yi ng f al sel y at hi s own t r i al .

2. Hi st or y and Char act er i st i cs of t he Def endant

Def endant was an empl oyee of t he Sher i f f s Depart ment f or

appr oxi mat el y 21 years. ( PSR 116. ) He r ecei ved many pr omot i ons

over t he year s. ( I d. ) But as shown at t r i al , def endant hel ped

f ost er t he cul t ur e t hat l ed t o t he f eder al i nvest i gat i on. As such,

def endant s conduct of f set s any of t he good servi ce he pr ovi ded t o

t he publ i c as a l aw enf or cement of f i cer .

3.

Promote Respect f or t he Law and Af f ord AdequateDeterr ence

A sent ence t hat pr ovi des f or speci f i c and gener al det er r ence i s

necessary. I nst ead of uphol di ng t he l aw, def endant used hi s posi t i on

of aut hor i t y as a l eader t o obst r uct an i nvest i gat i on i nt o wr ongdoi ng

by deput i es. Def endant s act i ons showed t hat he bel i eved t hat he and

ot her s i n t he Sher i f f s Depar t ment wer e above t he l aw. Hi s bel i efwas mani f est ed not onl y i n hi s obst r uct i ve act s i n 2011, but al so at

t r i al , dur i ng whi ch he commi t t ed per j ur y.

I n t er ms of gener al det er r ence, t hi s case has r ecei ved t he

at t ent i on of t he publ i c and of t he l aw enf or cement communi t y. I t

pr esent s an opport uni t y t o show t hat no one i s above the l aw and t hat



21/23


22/23

17

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

2324

25

26

27

28

Def endant s conduct as an execut i ve f ost er ed t he cul t ur e of

abuse and mi sconduct . Baca di d not make st atement s si mi l ar

t o def endant s i nst r uct i ons t o wor k i n t he gr ay ar ea or

hi s t hr eat t o make cases on capt ai ns who report ed

deput i es to I nt er nal Af f ai r s.

Dur i ng t he obst r uct i ve conduct , phone recor ds show t he co-

conspi r ators were i n t ouch wi t h def endant much more

f r equent l y t han t hey wer e wi t h Baca.

Emai l s show t he co- conspi r ators cor r esponded wi t h def endant

and def endant s ai de, and not wi t h Baca or Baca s ai de.

Def endant was ext r emel y angry when the FBI was abl e t o

i nt ervi ew Ant hony Br own. When Baca was t ol d t hi s occurr ed,

he di d not act concer ned.

Def endant was present at Men s Cent r al J ai l when hi s co-

conspi r ators t ampered wi t h wi t nesses; Baca was not t here

and ther e has been no evi dence that shows Baca was t ol d

what happened.

Def endant di r ect ed t hi s oper at i on and i s t he most cul pabl e.

Second, t he Cour t i s awar e of t he i ssues r ai sed i n Baca s PSR.

These i ssues pl ace hi m i n a ver y di f f er ent posi t i on t han t he ot her s

i nvol ved i n t hi s of f ense.

Thi r d, Baca pl ed gui l t y t o l yi ng t o t he f eder al gover nment ,

whi ch was t he most r eadi l y pr ovabl e of f ense agai nst hi m, and t her ange set f or t h i n hi s pl ea agr eement r ef l ect s a sent ence wi t hi n t he

Sent enci ng Gui del i nes r ange f or t hat of f ense. Meanwhi l e, def endant

was convi ct ed of conspi r i ng t o obst r uct j ust i ce and obst r uct i on of

j ust i ce. Hi s Sentenci ng Gui del i nes r ange i s much greater as a r esul t



23/23

paul tanaka sentencing memo

Documents