Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 1 of 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF V. : : : : : : : :

CRIMINAL NO.: 3:10cr60 (VLB)

JUNE 1, 2011

STERLING MAZZA DEFENDANT

MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING The Defendant, STERLING MAZZA, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, submits this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing. The Defendant, STERLING MAZZA, through Counsel, respectfully requests that the Court consider a fair and appropriate sentence in light of the nature of the offence, the Defendants age, criminal record, work history, assistance to the Government and post-arrest drug rehabilitation.

THE PRE-SENTENCE REPORT The Defendant, STERLING MAZZA, and Counsel have reviewed the PreSentence Report and have no objections. The Defendant thanks United States Probation Officer Timothy Donohue for his thorough and accurate report.

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 2 of 9

DEPARTURES The Court is respectfully moved to depart below the mandatory minimum guideline of 120 months pursuant to 5C1.2 and to depart from the Defendants Sentencing Guideline range of 37-46 months as a result of the anticipated U.S.S.G. 5K1.1 motion to be filed by the Government.

CRIMINAL HISTORY CATEGORY The Defendant Sterling Mazza has no prior criminal record and zero criminal history points and the Probation Office has assigned her a criminal history category of I.

SENTENCING SCHEME POST-BOOKER The Federal Sentencing Guideline previously were considered to be mandatory edicts. But those dictates lost that status and became advisory when the United States Supreme Court, in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), rendered the United States Sentencing Guidelines no longer mandatory. The directives of Booker and 3553(a) make clear that courts may no longer uncritically apply the guidelines. The U.S. Supreme Court articulated in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007) and again in Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), that in sentencing, there is no presumption that the Guidelines must apply. In United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005), the Second Circuit reviewed Booker and explained how courts should now approach sentencing and

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 3 of 9

the determination of a fair and just sentence. Since the Supreme Courts decision in Booker, while the sentencing court is still required to consider the applicable Guidelines range, it must also consider the other factors enumerated in 3553(a) when imposing sentence. The Crosby Court has set forth the model for sentencing in the postBooker world of federal sentencing. Essentially, there are now three types of sentences a court may impose. Id. at 111 n.9, 113. First, there are sentences within the applicable sentencing guideline range. Second, there are guideline sentences that result from permissible departures pursuant to Chapter Five of the Sentencing Guidelines. Finally, there are non-guideline sentences that are sentences that do not fall within the guideline range and do not result from permissible departures. Id. Presumably, non-guideline sentences result from the consideration of prohibited factors or from circumstances that are in some fashion outside of the broad departure authority U.S.S.G. 5K2.0 would otherwise encompass. To determine a sentence under Crosbys model, a court must first calculate the Defendants guidelines and consider them. Next, the sentencing court must consider whether departures are appropriate. Third, the court must decide, after considering the guidelines and all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), whether to impose a guideline sentence (including a sentence that results from permissible departures), or a non-guideline sentence. Id. It is 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 4 of 9

that mandates that the Court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the [articulated] purposes [of sentencing]. 1 Recently, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals made an unambiguous pronouncement regarding the Guidelines in United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24714 (2008). After an en banc rehearing, the Court proclaimed the following: The Guidelines provide the starting point and the initial benchmark for sentencing, Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596, and district courts must "remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process," Id. at 596 n.6. It is now, however, emphatically clear that the Guidelines are guidelines -- that is, they are truly advisory. A district court may not presume that a Guidelines sentence is reasonable; it must instead conduct its own independent review of the sentencing factors, aided by the arguments of the prosecution and defense. District judges are, as a result, generally free to impose sentences outside the recommended range. When they do so, however, they "must consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance." Id. at 597. In this way, the district court reaches an informed and individualized judgment in each case as to what is "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to fulfill the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Cavera, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 24714 at *16 - *17. The primary directive in Section 3553(a) is for sentencing courts to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph 2. Section 3553(a)(2) states that such purposes are:

See, e.g., United States v. Ministro-Tapia, 470 F.3d 137 (2d Cir. 2006), (2d Cir. 2006) (Discussion Of The Parsimony Clause; District Court Must Impose Below theRange Sentence If It Finds that Such a Sentence Serves the Ends of Sentencing as Well as a Guidelines Sentence).

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 5 of 9

(A) (B) (C) (D)

to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, 3553(a) further directs sentencing courts to consider the following factors: 1) 2) 3) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; the kinds of sentences available; the kinds of sentences and the sentencing ranges established for the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Commission and in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced, or (in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release) the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

4)

5)

6)

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 6 of 9

ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATION

The Probation Office calculated Sterling Mazzas offense level as follows Base Offense Level Specific Offense Characteristic (5C1.2) Adjustment for Acceptance of Responsibility 26 -2 -3

TOTAL

21

As Ms. Mazza has zero criminal history points, the Probation Office computed a Criminal History Category of I resulting in a guidelines range of imprisonment of 37-46 months.

ARGUMENT 18 USC 3553(a) directs the sentencing court to consider numerous factors in imposing an appropriate sentence.

The Defendant, Sterling Mazza, recognizes the severity of her crimes as she has progressed in her sobriety and has stopped smoking marijuana and using illicit drugs. As her mind has cleared, Sterling Mazza has come to appreciate the effect that marijuana has had on her thinking, memory and

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 7 of 9

judgment. Sterling Mazza is embarrassed and ashamed that her actions have helped put marijuana into society. To that end, Sterling Mazza understands that she needs to be punished for her actions and acknowledges the Courts need to fashion a sentence which balances the serious nature of drug dealing, deterrence and the protection of the public with the acknowledgement of responsibility, cooperation and rehabilitation that she has exhibited since her arrest. Sterling Mazza believes that a sentence at the low end of her guideline range (36 months) would serve these purposes. Moreover, if the Court would consider a sentence at the lower rate of her guidelines, the Defendant would be grateful and appreciative as she is aware that the consequences of her actions could have been much greater.

CONCLUSION Sterling Mazza prays that the Court consider a sentence that would encompass not only the crime she committed but also consider the positive changes she has made. Sterling Mazzas work history proves that she can be a productive and contributing member of society. While the Defendant is terrified to spend so much time incarcerated she seeks a sentence that will allow her return to the most positive aspects of her life such as seeking employments, furthering her education and continuing sobriety.

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 8 of 9

THE DEFENDANT STERLING MAZZA BY: /s/_________ FRED J. ANTHONY Anthony and Reale 90 Huntington Street PO Box 2340 Shelton, Connecticut 06484 203-924-4300 attyanthony@anthonyandreale.com Federal Bar #: ct08971

Case 3:10-cr-00060-VLB Document 211

Filed 06/01/11 Page 9 of 9

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that on June 1, 2011, a copy of the foregoing Motion for Extension of Time was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Courts CM/ECF System.

/s/ _______________________ FRED J. ANTHONY