Judge McMahon also more interestingly tore into the government's sentencing memo on former Carton co-defendant Michael Wright which asked for 2 years prison time.
Document 166:
Docket Text:
NOTICE TO PARTIES as to Michael Wright. The parties are hereby notified that the court disagrees with the Guidelines calculation prepared by Probation (and apparently agreed to by the Government). I do not intend to deduct two points from his Offense Level calculation on the ground that he was a "minor participant" in the crime. He was anything but. While the Defendant may have played a lesser role in the charged scheme than did his co-conspirators, there is no way that the activity described in the Government's sentencing memorandum - activity about which the court heard considerable testimony at Mr. Carton's trial - qualifies him as a "minor participant" in the crime under USSG 3B1.2(b). He may have played a lesser overall role than did Mr. Caron [sic], but "lesser" does not mean "minor" - as the Government well knows and often argues, in cases where a defendant's criminal conduct is far less egregious than was Mr. Wright's. The criteria in the commentary to this guideline requires the court to consider such things as the degree to which the Defendant understood the scope and structure of the criminal activity; the degree to which he engaged in the planning or organizing of that activity; the degree to which he exercised decision-making authority; the nature and extent of his activity; and the degree to which he stood to gain from the activity. As set forth in the Government's sentencing memorandum (which contains a far more accurate summary of Mr. Wright's actions than does his largely exculpatory memorandum), Mr. Wright fully understood that he and Mr. Carton were planning to "rob Peter to pay Paul" (see, e.g., GX 54, which was sent to Wright); he set up and was the sole signatory on the "Tier One Tickets" bank account; he transferred almost $1 million from the Tier One bank account into an account he controlled and lied to his partners in crime in order to justify that transfer; and he used that money so transferred for his own benefit: $250,000 to pay down his home equity line of credit; $40,000 to pay various other personal debts, including his credit card; and $690,000 to pay off a Carton gambling debt that he had personally guaranteed (thereby reducing his own financial exposure). Mr Carton may have been involved in illegal activity to cover his debts for a longer period of time, but Mr. Wright clearly understood the scope and structure of the criminal activity; engaged in planning and then carrying out what was in essence a $2 million theft; and used almost half the haul for his own direct or indirect benefit. And unlike Mr. Carton, he did not return any money to the victim of the crime. He did not play a "minor" role in the crime. I am notifying the parties in advance of sentencing so that they can tailor their remarks accordingly.
Please follow Bob's Blitz on Twitter for exclusive Blitz stories.
Tweet