donald ogman, government memo

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : Crim. No. 3:12CR74 (WWE) : v. : : DONALD OGMAN : February 27, 2015

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

This Memorandum is submitted in aid of the defendants sentencing which is scheduled

for March 10, 2015. Given the seriousness of the offense, the history and characteristics of the

defendant including his gang leadership and unremitting criminal record, and the need for the

sentence imposed to provide just punishment, promote respect for the law, deter the defendant

and others from engaging in criminal conduct, and to protect society from future depredations of

this defendant, the Government is requesting a sentence of 235 months at the top of the advisory

guideline range.

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Ogman was initially arrested on a complaint on or about March 28, 2012. On or about

April 9, 2012, a federal grand jury sitting in New Haven returned a multi-count indictment

against Ogman and 17 co-defendants. Specifically, the indictment charged Ogman with

conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of cocaine

base/crack cocaine and a quantity of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1),

841(b)(1)(A)(iii), and 846. A conviction on that offense carries a mandatory minimum term of

10 years and up to lifetime imprisonment, followed by five years to life of supervised release,

Case 3:12-cr-00074-WWE Document 1098 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 19

2

and a fine of up to $10,000,000. Ogman was also charged in count two of the indictment with

possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of Title 21, United States Code,

Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C).

On or about January 14, 2014, Ogman was charged in a superseding indictment with

those same offenses.

On or about March 14, 2014, Ogman pled guilty to count one of the superseding

indictment before the Honorable William I. Garfinkel, who issued findings and a

recommendation that this Court accept the guilty plea. (Doc. No. 805).

In connection with the change of plea proceedings, the parties entered into a plea

agreement. (Doc. No. 804). In that agreement, the parties stipulated to a total offense level 31,

which, when combined with a Criminal History Category VI, resulted in a range of 188 to 235

months of imprisonment, a fine range of $15,000 to $10,000,000, U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(c)(3), and a

supervised release term of five years to life, U.S.S.G. 5D1.2. 1 The parties agreed that Ogman

faced a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 120 months. 21 U.S.C. 841 (b)(l)(A)(iii).

B. The Presentence Report

On February 13, 2015, the Probation Office filed its comprehensive final report. That

report, without objection and consistent with the parties agreement, determined that, with the

amendments to the drug tables, the defendant's base offense level for conspiracy to possess with 1 The parties agreed that, with the amendments to the drug tables, the defendant's base offense level for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine base/crack cocaine, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2Dl.l(c)(4) and1B1.3, is 30, based on the agreement of the parties that the amount of controlled substances involved in the offense and relevant conduct is between 280 and 840 grams of cocaine base/crack cocaine. Two levels were added under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c) for the defendant's aggravating role as an organizer of the criminal activity constituting the conspiracy alleged in the superseding indictment, and two (2) levels were added since the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense. Three levels were subtracted under U.S.S.G. 3El.l for acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 31 under the current Guidelines Manual.


3

intent to distribute 280 grams or more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine

base/crack cocaine, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2Dl.l(c)(4) and 1B1.3, was 30, based on the amount

of controlled substances involved in the offense and relevant conduct being between 280 and 840

grams of cocaine. PSR 72 and 78.

Two levels were added under U.S.S.G. 2D1.1(b)(1) since, as stipulated by the parties,

the defendant possessed a firearm during the commission of the offense. See PSR 70. Unlike

the plea agreement, which added two-levels under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c), however, the PSR added

four levels under U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a), since the probation officer found that the defendant was a

leader in criminal activity involving five or more participants. See PSR 81.

Three levels were subtracted under U.S.S.G. 3El.l for acceptance of responsibility,

resulting in a total offense level of 33 under the current Guidelines Manual. The PSR also

agreed that, with 21 criminal history points, the defendant was in criminal history category VI.

Accordingly, the PSR calculated Ogmans guideline range at 235 to 293 months (PSR 143),

followed by five years to life of supervised release (PSR 147), a fine of between $17, 500 and

$10,000,000 (PSR 149), and a special assessment of $100.

As discussed below, the Government asks the Court to abide by the plea agreement with

respect to role and downwardly depart two-levels under United States v. Fernandez, 877 F.2d

1138, 1145 (2d Cir. 1989), so as to give effect to the parties agreement, thereby setting the

guideline imprisonment range at 188 to 235 months.

C. Offense Conduct

The defendants offense conduct is described in paragraphs eight through 72 of the PSR.

In substance the report relates that, in response to the outbreak of violence and the

increased drug trafficking in the Hill area of New Haven, the FBI-led Safe Streets Gang Task


4

Force, (SSGTF), commenced an investigation into a street gang known as the Grape Street Crips.

The leader of that gang was Donald Ogman, a/k/a Manny O and Maine, who was also a mid-

level supplier of cocaine base to members and associates of the gang. Ogman ordinarily

purchased bulk quantities of cocaine from a source or sources of supply which he processed into

crack cocaine, and he then redistributed the crack in quantities ranging from eight-balls (3.5

grams) to ounces to various individuals in the Hill and other neighborhoods in New Haven.

The investigation utilized a number of investigative techniques, including controlled

purchases of narcotics from individuals operating in the Hill including Ogman. Between March

2011 and September 2011, some 75 controlled purchases of cocaine base were conducted from

numerous individuals, including approximately 10 among members or associates of the Grape

Street Crips operating in the Hill. A number of buys were made from Ogman, specifically, on

December 7, 2011, (2.7 grams of crack), December 9, 2011, (6.0 grams of crack), December 14,

2011, (10.6 grams of crack), December 29, 2011, (12.9 grams of crack), and January 10, 2012,

(6.3 grams of crack).

In addition, the SSGTF secured the court-authorized interception of wire and electronic

communications (including text messages) over Ogmans cellular telephone. The interception of

wire communications began in early January 2012, and terminated in late March 2012, with the

arrests of Ogman and a number of his drug and/or gang associates in Connecticut and Rhode

Island.

The wiretap revealed that, in addition to directing the activities of the Grape Street Crips

in New Haven and elsewhere, Ogman was a distributor of crack in New Haven. He obtained or

attempted to obtain cocaine in bulk quantities from a number of sources (including co-defendants

Rommel Brown and Kenneth Sturdivant), sometimes in partnership with other individuals (such


5

as co-defendants Lamont Reed, Clayton Carney, and Matthew Spearman), and he would then

cook up the cocaine into crack, on occasion under the tutelage of Carney. Generally, Ogman

distributed eight ball (3.5 grams) quantities of crack to others for distribution including fellow

Grape Street Crips Derrick Brock, Anaje Amin, Alphonzo Dixon, Marvin Howard, and Deandre

Barnes, as well as to others including his uncle, Marvin Ogman, and Charles Hart. He also

conspired with others (including fellow Crips Edward Prezioso, Cody Belanger, Wayne Wright,

and Richard Mason) to that same end. He directed his brother, Cornell Streater, another Crip, to

distribute smaller quantities of crack. He also utilized various apartments, including that of Jan

Boria, to cook-up and store drugs and firearms.

During the course of the electronic surveillance, scores of calls were intercepted

involving the illegal distribution of crack though, perhaps, none as blatant as the February 7,

2012 call between Ogman and co-defendant Richard Mason, a transcript of which is attached

hereto as Exhibit 1. In that call, in which Mason actually can be heard conducting two sales of

crack, the two discussed, among other things, drug distribution in New Haven, recent federal law

enforcement action involving two separate investigations of drug trafficking at Maltby Place, and

the risks of federal prosecution, including a prescient discussion about the perils (to defendants)

of a federal drug conspiracy prosecution.

In addition to arrest warrants, a number of search warrants were executed on March 28,

2012 and, together with searches by consent, resulted in the seizure of crack cocaine/cocaine

base, currency, narcotics paraphernalia and firearms. For example, seized from a location

associated with Ogman were 22.8 grams of crack, narcotics paraphernalia, 87 rounds of

ammunition, and various Grape Street Crips accoutrements. Ogman was arrested at 499 Ferry


6

Street where the phone he used during the wiretap was recovered, along with additional Grape

Street Crips apparel.

Finally, in his post-arrest statement, Ogman admitted that he did not have a job and sold

crack almost every day. Ogman said that he was not the leader of the Grape Street Crips,

although he said that people thought that he occupied that role.

As noted, a number of the individuals involved in the conspiracy were fellow members of

the Grape Street Crips. Intercepted calls with them included gang-related activity and

converations, including discussing issues with rival gangs, possible retaliation against members

of the rival Bloods gang, and the acquisition of firearms. Intercepted calls also involved Ogman

and other Crips arranging gang meetings, including a Bosses Day celebration at a motel in

New Haven, Connecticut on February 28, 2012, which brought together Crips from Connecticut,

Rhode Island, and New York. Still photographs taken from the Bosses Day celebration are

appended hereto as Exhibit 2, and the Government will be prepared to play at least a portion of

the video for the Court at the sentencing hearing.

. II. LEGAL STANDARD

A sentencing judge is required to: (1) calculate[] the relevant Guidelines range,

including any applicable departure under the Guidelines system; (2) consider[] the Guidelines

range, along with the other 3553(a) factors; and (3) impose[] a reasonable sentence. See

United States v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 26 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d

103, 113 (2d Cir. 2005). In turn, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) provides that [t]he court, in determining

the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed


7

(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 needed educational or vocational

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established [in the Sentencing

Guidelines];

(5) any pertinent policy statement [issued by the Sentencing Commission];

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

18 U.S.C. 3553(a).

The Second Circuit reviews a sentence for reasonableness, see Rita v. United States, 127

S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007), under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard, United States v.

Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 189 (2d Cir. 2008) (en banc). As the Second Circuit recently explained:

Our review has two components: procedural review and substantive review. [Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189.] We must first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence--including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L. Ed. 2d 445 (2007). Once we have determined that the sentence is procedurally sound, we then review the substantive reasonableness of the sentence, reversing only when the trial courts sentence cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. Cavera, 550 F.3d at 189 (internal quotation marks omitted).


8

United States v. Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 179 (2d Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted).

III. GUIDELINES

A. Role

In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated to the application of a two-level role

enhancement pursuant U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). The Probation Office assessed a four-level role

enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a) for the reasons stated at paragraph 145 of the PSR,

specifically, that Ogman occupied a leadership or management role in criminal activity involving

five or more people.

While being a supplier of drugs, without more, does not ordinarily qualify for a

leadership enhancement, see United States v. Weaver, 716 F.3d 439, 44445 (7th Cir.2013), as a

legal and factual matter, the Government cannot object to the Probation Officers calculation.

That being said, however, the Government stands by its agreement and stipulation with the

defendant. Should the Court agree with the four-level enhancement in the PSR, the Government

would ask the Court to downwardly depart two-levels to give effect to the parties agreement to

an imprisonment range of 168 to 235 months. See United States v. Fernandez, 877 F.2d 1138,

1145 (2d Cir. 1989).

B. Crack/Powder Cocaine Ratio

The PSR at 159 identifies as a basis of a possible variance the disparity under the

guidelines between powder cocaine and crack cocaine. Were the Court adopt such a variance in

this case, the base offense level would be 24 (based on from 500 grams but less than two


https://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?mt=Westlaw&db=506&tc=-1&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&findtype=Y&ordoc=2033096208&serialnum=2030662881&vr=2.0&fn=_top&sv=Split&tf=-1&referencepositiontype=S&pbc=17FA2D3C&referenceposition=444&rs=WLW15.01

9

kilograms of powder), 2 plus increases of two levels each for the firearm and role enhancements,

and a three-level reduction for acceptance, for an adjusted offense level of 110-137 months.

While the Government acknowledges that the Court has the authority to consider this

disparity in sentencing the defendant, the Government urges the Court to not do so. The

Government notes that the disparity argument was made by a number of the defendants in this

case. In all but the last two of the cases sentenced, the Court adhered to the 18:1 ratio in the

Guidelines; in those two most recent sentencings, the Court calculated the Guidelines based on a

1:1 ratio.

The Government respectfully submits that considering the facts and circumstances of this

case and this defendant as discussed below, the Court should adhere to the ratio established by

the United States Sentencing Commission. Given the Courts sentences to date, using the 18:1

ratio will promote consistency and minimize disparities between defendants and, in the

Governments view, set a range consistent with the defendants significantly greater culpability.

If the Court declines to do so, alternatively, it should give great weight to the need of this

sentence to provide just punishment for the offense, promote respect for the law, deter the

defendant and others from involvement in criminal activity and, perhaps, most significantly,

protect the community from the defendant.

IV. APPLICATION OF SECTION 3553(a) FACTORS

Based on the factors outlined in Section 3553(a), a sentence of 235 guideline range would be

reasonable and appropriate. 2 As noted in the PSR at paragraph 17, Ogman purchased approximately 200 grams a week of cocaine which he converted to crack which he then sold in 3.5 gram quantities to some two dozen street level distributors including members of the Crips. Putting aside cooperating witness testimony, the intercepted telephone calls in and of themselves make plain that the stipulation as to quantity is very conservative and that the intercepted telephone calls establish a quantity of crack well in excess of 500 grams, The offense conduct details a number of these conversations. See PSR 17-18, 25-34, 36-57, 59-63, 64-71.


10

A. Seriousness of the Offense

First, the offense is serious. Ogman was responsible for acquiring and then distributing a

large amount of crack into the New Haven community and the surrounding environs. He used

several sources of supply and would pool his money with coconspirators to get quantities of

cocaine to cook into crack. He used others apartments to cook up and store the crack, and used

drug addicts (who he referred to as fiends) to test his product, which he distributed to others to

sell for him or redistribute. And his drug operation was protected under the rubric of his

leadership of the Grape Street Crips and with the possession of firearms. Indeed, based on

intercepted conversations and information from other sources, it is apparent that Ogman was

often in possession of a firearm. See, e.g., PSR 20 and Exhibit 2.

B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Moreover, the history and characteristics of the defendant cry out for a substantial sentence.

As summarized in the PSR, the defendant has a long criminal history, dating back to his teens.

He has never held legitimate employment, aside from a single job reportedly held for two months

in 2000. It stands to reason that he has made his living off of narcotics trafficking for the entirety

of his adult life. . . . Mr. Ogman has not been deterred by any of the criminal sentences

previously imposed on him. PSR 161. As he told arresting officers, he does not work, and

sells crack every day.

1. Gang Affiliation

First, Ogman was-- and apparently remains -- a leader of the Grape Street Crips. The

Grape Street Crips are part of the Crips which is a national gang which has been described in the

2009 Department of Justice National Gang Threat Assessment as:

a collection of structured and unstructured gangs that have adopted a common gang culture. Crips membership is estimated at 30,000 to 35,000; most members are African American


11

males from the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Large, national-level Crips gangs include 107 Hoover Crips, Insane Gangster Crips, and Rolling 60s Crips. Crips gangs operate in 221 cities in 41 states. The main source of income for Crips gangs is the street-level distribution of powder cocaine, crack cocaine, marijuana, and PCP. The gangs also are involved in other criminal activity such as assault, auto theft, burglary, and homicide

. Ogman took his leadership role seriously and his involvement in the gang has come to define

who he is. For example, intercepted telephone calls revealed that a Grape Street leader in the

Bronx had designated Tuesday, February 28, 2012, as Boss Day, apparently an annual

tradition in which members of the gang meet. In 2012, the event was hosted by Ogman and his

newly recognized New Haven set at the Econolodge in the Westville section of New Haven,

Connecticut. Intercepted communications reflected that one of the purposes of the event was to

introduce members of Ogmans New Haven set to the New York leader. Another purpose of the

meeting was to complete a G-Check which was a test of sorts to confirm that members of

Ogmans New Haven set were familiar with the Grape Street Crips rules and hand-signs.

Finally, Ogman and his Crip associates used the occasion to welcome back from prison co-

defendant Wayne Wright, a respected OG, or original gangster (a Crip with seniority). Law

enforcement officers conducted surveillance of the meeting, which was attended by

approximately 40 individuals from New York Hartford, Connecticut, and Rhode Island,

including Ogman and a number of the defendants from this case. The event was hosted by Sheist

Milleni, a popular rap artist associated with the larger Crips organization and then East Coast

leader of the Grape Street Crips. Still photographs taken from video posting of that meeting is

appended hereto as Exhibit 3. That photograph depicts co-defendant Cornell Streater (to the far

right wearing a Crips-associated hat), Donald Ogman (wearing purple and a Crips-associated hat,

and giving a Crips sign), co-defendant Wayne Wright (to his left wearing a purple hat and Crips

beads), and co-defendant Kenneth Sturdivant (wearing the white t-shirt and a Crips hat.)


12

Not all of Ogmans leadership was confined to gang social events. He led his Crip set in

an on-going feud with the rival Bloods gang. For example, on February 3, 2012, a member of

the Bloods from the Hill South was shot while attending a funeral in the Hill North. Based on

intercepted wire communications, it appears that the shooting was done by a then-unidentified

member or associate of the Grape Street Crips. During the week following this shooting, various

members of the Bloods attempted to retaliate against members of the Grape Street Crips. Ogman

in turn, over his telephone, ordered many members and associates of the Grape Street Crips to

arm themselves in order to protect themselves from the Bloods.

On February 8, 2012, Ogman received an incoming telephone call from an Unknown Male

("UM"). During this conversation, Ogman informed the UM that the violence between the rival

gangs had escalated because of the recent shooting of the Bloods member. Further, Ogman

stated that the Bloods member was shot because he was on "our side," which is believed to mean

the Hill North, or Grape Street Crip territory. During this conversation, Ogman stated, It's back

nasty again [escalating violence]. The UM asked, It's back nasty? Ogman stated, Yeah . .

.I'm talking about, talking about the other side [Hill South]. That shit definitely back on. That

shit aint, never gonna stop cause [turf battle between the Bloods and the Grape Street Crips].

Ogman then explained to the UM that members of the Bloods attempted to assault co-

defendant Anaje Amin in the Newhallville section of New Haven. Ogman later stated, I told

niggas in the beginning, all this shit all linking back to M.D. [which were the initials for Markey

D, the slain New Haven Crips leader Derrick Cooper], who was replaced in the leadership

position by Ogman). Later, Ogman continued, The whole time niggas had, niggas been had

drop on certain niggas, but niggas didn't want to do it because niggas our family and niggas

didn't really know, who had something to do him shit, UI Niggas like nah, don't, you know what


13

I mean, niggas don't really know what happened. I like nah, fuck that. Know what I mean? It's,

if, if, if the niggas that, if they [Bloods] on our side [Hill North], you gotta get em, no matter

what. Talking about some, you know what I mean, that, if they, on that red side, so you can't

really trust him like that my nigga. This latter portion of the conversation related to the recent

violence between the Bloods and the Grape Street Crips which was connected to the murder of

Cooper, who was believed to be murdered in 2011 by a member of the Bloods in Hamden,

Connecticut. Ogmans stated that since the murder, members of the Grape Street Crips have

been in positions to kill [had drop on] members of the Bloods, however they were hesitant to

do so because they did not know which Blood killed Cooper and/or due to familial

relationships. Nonetheless, Ogman made it clear that if the Bloods were on our side, you gotta

get em, no matter what.

On December 9, 2014, Ogman was interviewed by the Probation Officer. PSR 75.

Paragraph 131 of the PSR reports that Ogman stated that he wants to show the children that

they will not live by getting involved with gangs and drugs. However, the Government

understands that Ogman continued to exercise a leadership role in the Crips even after his

detention in this case.. As noted in the PSR, records from the Department of Corrections reflects

disciplinary citations for Security Risk Group (gang) affiliation (referred to as SRG), both

before -- on March 1, 2013; June 7, 2013; and February 26, 2014 and September 23, 2014,

after his guilty plea in this case.

As noted at paragraph 6 of the PSR, the February 26 infraction arose out of a search of

another inmates cell on February 23, 2014 in which two pieces of paper written by a high

ranking member of the Crips containing gang identifiers were discovered, and which appear to

have been written to a recruitee. Ogmans handwriting was compared to the writing in this letter


14

and, although he denied being the author, it was determined that the writing was the same. The

July incident arose out of two letters relating to the Crips which were intercepted by the

Department of Corrections on July 12, 2014, as they were being sent from Ogman to another

inmate. Ogman admitted to the charges.3

2. Criminal Record

Based on the defendants criminal record, Ogman has sustained a total history score of 21

points. The highest Criminal History Category, VI, begins at a score of 13 points. Ogman is

literally off the chart.

On November 14, 1997, Ogman was arrested for Sale of Narcotics, involving his possession

of a baggie with crack packaged for resale. PSR 90. On October 14, 1998, presumably while

on bond, Ogman was arrested for Robbery in the Third Degree and Assault in the Second

Degree. PSR 92. In that case Ogman was part of group of individuals who kicked, punched

and choked the victim, and took a gold chain and $50 cash. The victim sustained a two and one-

half inch laceration to his scalp, a split lip and a bruise under his eye. On November 9, 1998,

Ogman was sentenced to four years incarceration, with two years to serve and two years

probation on the narcotics plea, and on December 22, 1998, was sentenced on the robbery and

assault plea to a concurrent three years to serve and three years probation. PSR 90 and 91.

Ogman was admitted to custody on October 15, 1998 and was released to a halfway house on

September 13, 2000. Less than three months later, he was returned to custody and remained

confined until November 23, 2001 when he was discharged and began his probation, PSR 92. 3 Under the plea agreement, the Government is not bound to recommend credit for acceptance of responsibility if, inter alia, the defendant has not terminated or withdrawn from criminal conduct or associations See also U.S.S.G. 3E1.1, Application Note 1(B). Based on the information presently known to the Government, in its discretion, the Government intends to recommend that the defendant receive a three-level reduction. However, the Court can and in the Governments view should consider Ogmans behavior and associations while incarcerated in determining the appropriate sentence under Section 3553(a).


15

Some four months later, he was arrested for Sale of Narcotics. In that case, police responding

to shots fired observed a vehicle speeding away, which the occupants abandoned and fled from

the scene. Ogman, who was one of the occupants, was observed dropping an item which turned

out to be a bag containing 32 baggies of crack. Cash in the amount of $243 was recovered from

Ogmans pocket. Ogman pled guilty on January 22, 2003 and was sentenced to eight years

probation, 39 months to serve, and three years of probation. PSR 93. He was found in

violation of probation of his 1998 conviction and sentenced to two years incarceration. PSR

90 and 92.

On April 8, 2005, Ogman left a halfway house without permission, placing items in his bed

to deceive personnel into believing that he was still there. He was arrested for Escape in the First

Degree on May 25, 2005 and sentenced to one year in jail, with a consecutive six months to

serve. PSR 94.

He was released on June 19, 2006 to supervised parole. He began his probation on

November 8, 2006. PSR 93

Thereafter, he sustained convictions for Interfering on November 13, 2006 (PSR 96), and

for Possession of Marijuana on October 19, 2007. PSR 97. On December 27, 2007, he was

arrested for Breach of Peace when a tow-truck operator advised police that during the course of

repossessing a vehicle, Ogman had shown him a firearm, although the plea minutes established

only that a dispute had occurred. PSR 99.

On January 31, 2008, Ogman was arrested for Possession of Marijuana to which he pled

guilty on May 22, 2008. However, the factual basis of the plea included the fact that Ogman had

been found with various items including crack cocaine, although only the marijuana charge was

being pursued. PSR 100.


16

On March 28, 2009, Ogman was arrested for Assault in the Third Degree and Reckless

Endangerment. In that case, the victim advised that Ogman -- her childs father -- assaulted her,

pushing her and causing her and the ten month old child to fall to the ground. Ogman then

punched the victim with his fist causing a laceration about a quarter inch deep. Ogman pled

guilty on September 25, 2009 and was sentenced to one year incarceration. PSR 104.

On June 11, 2009, Ogman was arrested for assaulting another female by punching her in the

face and head. The victim stated that Ogman had done this to her before . On September 25,

2009, Ogman was sentence to one year in jail. PSR 105.

Ogman was arrested and incarcerated in September 2009 for the January 24, 2009 shooting

death of Johnny Gilmore in front of Codys Diner. Those charges were dismissed on October

30, 2010, when the key eyewitness recanted her testimony. See

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20100930/murder-charge-dropped-against-new-haven-

man. Ogman remained in custody on his September 25, 2009 sentence of two years for violating

his probation from his 2002 conviction. PSR 93. He was discharged from transitional

supervision on September 23, 2011.

Less than three months later, the conspiracy is alleged to have commenced and Ogman made

his first sale to a cooperating witness.4

Ogmans conduct while incarcerated has also been remarkable. While incarcerated on the

1998 robbery conviction, he received disciplinary citations for fighting, assault, giving false

information, and disobeying a direct order. PSR 92. While incarcerated on his sale of narcotic

and escape convictions, Ogman received citations for disobeying a direct order, security

4 O On February 12, 2012, Ogman threatened a store clerk by saying he would hit her in the face. The victim related that Ogman had hit her in the past and that she feared for her safety and the safety of their child. Ogman was served with a warrant in February 2013 while incarcerated on the instant charges and pled guilty and received a one year suspended jail sentence. PSR 106.


http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20100930/murder-charge-dropped-against-new-haven-manhttp://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20100930/murder-charge-dropped-against-new-haven-man

17

tampering, and fighting, PSR 93. While incarcerated for assault and reckless endangerment,

he was cited for fighting. PSR 104.

3. Goals of Federal Sentencing

Ogman is now 33 years old. To date, convictions have not deterred him from engaging in

serious criminal conduct. Nor has the imposition of sentences of imprisonment, even substantial

ones. Indeed, by the Governments calculation, not including periods between arrest on bond

and the time he was on escape status, Ogman has spent half of the fourteen years between 1998

and his March 2012 arrest in this case in custody.

Nor has incarceration in State of Connecticut correctional facilities stopped Ogman from

engaging in anti-social behavior while in custody, including assault. He has proven equally not

amendable to supervision while on bond, or under court supervision, escaping from a halfway

house, violating transitional supervision, and one two occasions having his probation revoked.

Even being the victim of a shooting in 2008 has done nothing to stop Ogman from dealing drugs,

carrying a firearm, and running a violent street gang.

Ogman has apparently done nothing to become a productive member of society. He reports

only having held one job for two months at BJs (which BJs does not confirm). PSR 132.

He has a tenth grade education and has not . . .earned his GED, nor has he participated in any

vocational training. PSR 132. He does not appear motivated to obtain drug treatment. PSR

127.

All this defendant appears to know and want to be part of is criminal activity and gang life.

The Government has no question but that the defendant will resume such activity and life when

he is released from prison, at least until such a time as he is too old to do so. For these reasons,

the Government respectfully submits that the Court should give paramount weight in sentencing


18

the defendant to the need for this sentence to deter the defendant and protect the community by

placing him in the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons outside of Connecticut5 -- for

a substantial period of time.

V. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Government concurs with the Probation Office that [a] significant

custodial sentence is required to reflect the serious nature of this offense, Mr. Ogmans

leadership role, and his possession of firearms, as well as to promote respect for the law, ensure

just punishment, specifically deter Mr. Ogman and to protect the public from future crimes he is

likely to perpetrate. PSR 162. In the Governments view, a guideline or non-guidelines

sentence of 235 months would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the

objectives of sentencing.6

Respectfully submitted, DEIRDRE M. DALY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY /s/ ANTHONY E. KAPLAN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Federal Bar No. ct08083 /s/ H. GORDON HALL ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Federal Bar No. ct05153 157 Church Street, Floor 25 New Haven, Connecticut 06510 (203) 821-3700 5 Given the defendants continued influence over the Grape Street Crips in Connecticut, Government requests that the Court recommend that the defendant be incarcerated in a facility outside the State of Connecticut. 6 The Government respectfully submits that conditions of Ogmans supervised release include that he not knowingly associate with any gang or gang members and that the Probation Office be authorized to conduct a search of the defendants residence, vehicle or person.


19

C E R T I F I C A T I O N I hereby certify that on February 27, 2015, the foregoing Governments Sentencing Memorandum was filed electronically. 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. Parties may access this filing through the Courts system. /s/ ANTHONY E. KAPLAN ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


Case 3:12-cr-00074-WWE Document 1098-1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 19

donald ogman, government memo

Documents