usa v. yee: defense sentencing memorandum

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 EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EE’S SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U MC ase N o.

C R 14-00196-C R B -2

JA M ES A .L A SSA R T (SB N 40913)N IC H O L A S C .L A R SO N (SB N 275870)M U R PH Y ,PEA R SO N ,B R A D L EY & FEEN EY88K earny Street,10thFloorSanFrancisco,C A 94108Telephone: (415)788-1900Facsim ile: (415)393-8087Em ail: JL assart@ m pbf.com

N L arson@ m pbf.com

A ttorneysforD efendantL EL A N D Y EE

U N ITED STA TES D ISTR IC T C O U R T

N O R TH ER N D ISTR IC T O FC A L IFO R N IA

SA N FR A N C ISC O D IV ISIO N

U N ITED STA TES O FA M ER IC A ,

Plaintiff,

v.

L EL A N D Y EE,

D efendant.

C ase N o. C R 14-00196-C R B -2

D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EE’SSEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M A N DM O T IO N FO R D EPA R T U R E

D ate: February 24,2016Tim e: 10:00a.m .Judge: H on.C harlesR .B reyerC trm : 6,17thFl.

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 of 41

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

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

T A B L EO FC O N T EN T S

Page

- i-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

I. IN TR O D U C TIO N .......................................................................................................................1

II. FA C TU A L B A C K G R O U N D ......................................................................................................4

III. TH EPR O PER G U ID EL IN EC A L C U L A T IO N S FO R Y EEIN D IC A TEA SEN TEN C EB ETW EEN 51-63M O N TH S .............................................................................5

A . The G overnm ent’sProposed Sentencing Enhancem entsH ave a D isproportionateEffectonY ee’sSentence and M ustB e R eviewed undera C learand C onvincingEvidence Standard............................................................................................................5

B . N oM onetary Enhancem entIsW arranted inC ount214..................................................6

C . The Enhancem entforthe Total N um berof Firearm sIsB ased onSpeculation,and N otanA ctual N um ber............................................................................................11

1. U C E4599R elied onthe A ssertionsof Jack soninY ee’sA bsence...................11

2. The L aterC onversationsB etweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4599IllustrateY ee’sL ack of D esire orIntenttoC arry O utthe A lleged 200W eaponTraffick ing..........................................................................................................15

3. Federal C ase L aw Illustratesthe Insufficiency of the Evidence againstY ee withR egard tothe Enhancem entunderC ount222....................................18

IV . TH ESEN TEN C IN G C R ITER IA O F18U .S.C .SEC TIO N 3553A L SO PO IN TT O W A R D S A SEN TEN C IN G O FB ETW EEN 57-51M O N TH S ...........................................19

A . N ature and C ircum stancesof the O ffense ......................................................................20

B . Section3553(a)(1):Y ee’sH istory and C haracteristics.................................................21

1. Exem plary C haracter..........................................................................................22

2. Exem plary Service tothe C om m unity...............................................................24

C . A Sentence of 51-63M onthsIsA ll thatIsN eeded toA ccom plishD istributiveJustice and A void U ndue D isparitiesunder18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(6).............................26

D . Section3553(a)(2):G eneral Purposesof the C rim inal Justice System ........................28

1. JustPunishm ent..................................................................................................29

2. G eneral D eterrence.............................................................................................29

3. Specific D eterrence ............................................................................................29


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

T A B L EO FC O N T EN T S(continued)

Page

- ii-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

4. R ehabilitation.....................................................................................................30

V . A D D IT IO N A L SEN TEN C IN G C O N SID ER A TIO N S .............................................................30

A . D ownward D epartures...................................................................................................30

1. C ivic,C haritable,and Public Service ................................................................31

2. A ge .....................................................................................................................31

3. C aretak ing ..........................................................................................................31

4. A berrantB ehavior..............................................................................................33

V I. C O N C L U SIO N ..........................................................................................................................33


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

T A B L EO FA U T H O R IT IES

Page

- iii-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

C asesGall v. United States,

552U .S.38(U .S.2007)..................................................................................................................5,19

United States v. Adelson,441F.Supp.2d 506(S.D .N .Y .2006)...............................................................................21,22,28,29

United States v. Anton,353Fed A ppx.343(11thC ir.2009)....................................................................................................19

United States v. Booker,543U .S.220(U .S.2005)..........................................................................................................5,19,21

United States v. Campbell,279F.3d 392(6thC ir.2002)................................................................................................................11

United States v. Carty,520F.3d 984(9thC ir.2008)...........................................................................................................5,19

United States v. Espinoza-Cano,F.3d 1126,1128(9thC ir.2006............................................................................................................19

United States v. Gupta,904F.Supp.2d 349(S.D .N .Y .2012).....................................................................................21,22,29

United States v. Hopper,177F.3d 824,832(9thC ir.1999)..........................................................................................5,6,12,29

United States v. Longstreet,603F.3d 273(5thC ir.2010).........................................................................................................18,19

United States v. McClatchey,316F.3d 112229(10thC ir2003).........................................................................................................10

United States v. Parker,462F.3d 273(3d.C ir.2006)...............................................................................................................26

United States v. Pena,268F.3d 215(3rd C ir.2001).................................................................................................................7

United States v. Restrepo,946F.2d 654(9thC ir.1991)......................................................................................................5,6,12

United States v. R ussell504Fed.A ppx.162(3d C ir.Pa.2012).........................................................................................10,11


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

T A B L EO FA U T H O R IT IES(continued)

Page

- iv -


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

United States v. Sapoznik,161F.3d 1117(7thC ir.1998)................................................................................................................7

United States v. Smart,518F.3d 800(10thC ir.2008).............................................................................................................26

United States v. W illis476F.3d 1121,1130(10thC ir.O k la.2007).................................................................................10,11

Statutes18U .S.C .

§ 1951....................................................................................................................................................6

18U .S.C .§ 1962(d)...............................................................................................................................................1

18U .S.C .§ 3553..............................................................................................................................................1,28

18U .S.C .§ 3553(a).................................................................................................................................19,20,21

18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(1).........................................................................................................................................20

18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(2)...................................................................................................................................28,29

18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(2)(A )-(D )............................................................................................................................28

18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(6)..................................................................................................................................26,28

28U .S.C .§ 944(j)................................................................................................................................................30

O ther A uthoritiesU.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,A pril 30,2015,

Proposed U SSG § 1B 1.3,atii.............................................................................................................10

U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of theFederal Sentencing Guidelines (M ay 2004).......................................................................................30

U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism and the First Offender (M ay 2004)............................................30

U .S.Sentencing C om m ission,A m endm entstothe Sentencing G uidelines(M ay 3,2010)...................30


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

T A B L EO FA U T H O R IT IES(continued)

Page

- v -


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

U .S.S.G .§ 1B 1.3................................................................................................................................................10

U .S.S.G .§ 1B 1.3(a)(1)(B )..................................................................................................................................10

U .S.S.G .§ 2C 1.1(b)(2).....................................................................................................................................6,7

U .S.S.G .§ 2K 2.1(b)(1)(E).................................................................................................................................12

U .S.S.G .§ 5H 1.11..............................................................................................................................................31

U .S.S.G .§ 5H 1.6................................................................................................................................................31


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

- 1-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

I. IN T R O D U C T IO N

D r. L eland Y ee (“Y ee”)stands before the C ourt having pled guilty to 18 U .S.C . Section

1962(d)R IC O C onspiracy,and having accepted responsibility forhisoffense conductand the harm he

caused.H is agreem entwiththe G overnm ent,however,does notinclude specific acceptance of certain

enhancem ents under the sentencing guidelines. Specifically,Y ee disagrees with the G overnm ent’s

positionas follows: (1)for C ount 214,the enhancem ent based on$60,000 should not apply,and

(2)forC ount222,noenhancem entforfirearm s should apply.These enhancem ents have,respectfully,

beenoverstated inthe G overnm ent’sproffered sentencing calculations,and are therefore still atissue.

A s further set forthbelow,anoffense level of no m ore than24(51-63m onths)is warranted,

based on the following: (1) N o M onetary Enhancem ent is warranted in C ount 214,(2) The

Enhancem entforthe Total N um berof Firearm sisbased onspeculation,and notanactual num ber,and

(3)the 18U .S.C .Section3553statutory factors also indicate that a sentence of no m ore than51-63

m onths is appropriate,based on Y ee’s exem plary life,the goals of sentencing,and avoiding a

sentencing disparity withsim ilarly situated co-defendants.

Inaddition,as C ounsel for Y ee has already pointed out to the ProbationD epartm ent,it is

critical toclosely exam ine the investigative procedure followed by the G overnm entinthism atterwhen

considering sentencing. Specifically,the G overnm ent brought into this investigationanextrem ely

sk illed agentwho,despite the lack of inform ationprovided as tohis back ground (education,training

and experience),displayed whatis clearly a thoroughunderstanding of the Federal law of conspiracy

and itsevidentiary intricacies.

Forexam ple,a review of the body recordings and wire conversations establishes thatthe lead

agent,withouta doubt,is well sk illed inthe nuances of the law of conspiracy,the law of applicable

hearsay evidence,as well as the adm issibility of the statem ents of co-conspirators. The agent is

extrem ely sk illed and k nowledgeable aboutthe generationof evidence thatisbothunable tobe refuted

orcross-exam ined because the words are notcom ing from the m outhof the defendantbutinstead,a

m anipulated co-defendant.

Itis quite clearthatthis very sk illed lead investigator,whounderstood thatonce there was the

hint of circum stantial evidence of anagreem ent am ongst individuals,k new he could speak withthe


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

- 2-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

m ost vulnerable individual using leading statem ents and assum ptions withwhichthat personwould

agree regardless of accuracy. Inthis particular circum stance,the vulnerable individual was K eith

Jack son (“Jack son”). Jack son becam e vulnerable in various ways: first,because of the various

activities inwhichhe becam e entwined for profit withthe undercover agent,the m ajority of which

were faroutside the k nowledge orconductof Y ee;second,because he becam e a paid em ployee of the

agent (who was pretending to be anorganiz ed crim e figure);and third,because he m ade financial

com m itm ents based onthe agent’s prom ises –which could only be m et with the agent being a

continuoussource of paym ent.

The agentbrilliantly hook ed and secured Jack sonand had com plete leverage overhim todohis

bidding.The agentplaced Jack sonina positionwhere he would consistently agree withthe agentand

agree withhis leading statem ents regarding others inthe alleged conspiratorial agreem ent,regardless

of theiraccuracy because he had a vested interestinagreeing withthe agent.Jack sonwas beholdento

the agentbecause he wasonhispayroll.Jack sonwaspaid asa consultantand received directionsasto

what was to be done,and it was clear he was convinced by the agent that he should expand his

business to the Sacram ento m ark et. Infact Jack sondid so and incurred debt as he expanded his

business,largely onthe prom ise from the agentof m ore m oney and business.Jack sonis notthe first

individual who expanded beyond his m eans based onthe prom ises of a potential business source.

Jack sonincurred additional liability (debt)inSacram ento through anoffice lease which m ade him

further reliant uponthe governm ent agent as a source of funds so that he could m aintainhis new

expansion.

This governm ent agent was extrem ely sk illful and m aneuvered Jack soninto a positionof

leverage where Jack sonwould agree wholeheartedly to the agent’s m andates,cajoling,and even

dem andssohe could be k eptonthe payroll.

O nce Jack sonhad beenhook ed onthe agent’s payroll and engaged with the agent inother

crim inal activities,e.g.,cocaine traffick ing (all totally independentof Y ee),he stated he would slow all

crim inal activitiesplanned withJack sonunlessJack sonshowed him resultsastoY ee’sinvolvem entin

anarm s transaction. The G overnm ent’s talented undercover agent appears well versed inthe art of

psychological m anipulationaswell asthe law of conspiracy.


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

- 3-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

It is quite evident that the agent was also fam iliar with the A ttorney G eneral guidelines

regarding undercoveroperations,toinclude the specific m andate toavoid entrapm ent.Inthis instance

the agent controlled the actions of Jack sonby prom ising him rem unerationwhile m aintaining debt

leverage.H e led Jack sonwithsuggestions of things thathe needed butavoided the directrestrictions

of entrapm ent. H owever,his paid agent,Jack son,was not bound by any of the rules of the federal

governm entusing anaware undercovercivilian.

Jack son,drivenby financial reasons and inthe world of conspiracy,independent of his co-

defendant,could agree tovariousthingseventhougha co-defendantm ay nothave assented and yetthe

co-defendantcould still be charged withresponsibility forJack son’sstatem ents.

M oreover,as a case such as this proceeds to court,the alleged co-conspirator of Jack sonis

bound by the statem ents of Jack son,who basically agreed to m any of the statem ents m ade by the

undercoveragent;these statem ents are adm itted againstthe alleged co-conspirators eventhoughthey

are hearsay. A s inthis case the breadth of a conspiracy canbe expanded by the statem ents m ade

betweenJack sonand the agent.These statem entsexpand the scope of the co-defendant’sresponsibility

regardlessof the intentork nowledge of the non-speak er,and regardlessof consent.

A nexperienced agent such as the one used by the G overnm ent inthis investigationis wise

enoughtok now thatthe co-conspirator,whencharged,has,inm ostinstances,noopportunity todefeat

orevencross-exam ine the statem entsof hisco-defendantbecause thatco-defendantisprotected by his

Fifthand SixthA m endm ent rights.Thus,anindividual about whom the co-defendant has spok enis

virtually ensnared inthatcircum stance.The C ourt,bound by the law,canprovide norelief from sucha

structured use of boththe law of conspiracy and the leverage of a sk illed undercovergovernm entagent

whocould expand the conspiracy throughone individual.The governm entagentinthis instance was

extrem ely talented,well trained,and very sk illful.

A ll thatbeing addressed,Y ee acceptsfull responsibility forhisactionsand hisoffense conduct

as well as the harm he caused.H owever,inconsidering sentencing,D efense counsel requests thatthe

C ourt consider the following factors while reviewing the Presentence R eport: who is the actual

speak er,whobasically inform s the speak ers’ conversations ina statem ent,and whatis the m otivation

of the em ployed but unwitting co-defendant who is agreeing withand work ing withthe governm ent


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-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

agent.

II. FA C T U A L BA C K G R O U N D

Y ee em igrated atthe age of three toSanFranciscofrom C hina.H e was bornonN ovem ber20,

1948,inC anton,C hina,and is the oldestof five children.H is fatherwas a veteranwhoserved inthe

U nited States A rm y and as a M erchant Seam an.Y ee was raised inSanFrancisco’s C hinatown.(See

Presentence InvestigationR eport(“PSR ”)at¶ 99.)

Y ee received his bachelor’s degree from the U niversity of C alifornia at B erk eley and his

m aster’s degree from SanFranciscoState U niversity.A fterearning his doctorate inC hild Psychology

at the U niversity of H awaii,Y ee work ed invarious m ental health and school settings. Y ee and his

wife,M axine,have beenm arried for 43 years and are the parents of four childrenraised inSan

Francisco. (Id. at ¶ 101.) A s the PSR correctly notes,Y ee has the continued support of his wife,

childrenand siblings.(Id. at¶ 103.)

Y ee waselected tothe State Senate in2006,afterserving fouryearsinthe State A ssem bly.(Id.

at¶ 115.)Y ee is the firstC hinese A m ericantobe elected tothe C alifornia State Senate.(Id.)D uring

his tim e inthe Senate,Y ee fought for children,m ental health services,work ing fam ilies,seniors,

education,open governm ent,consum er protection,civil rights,and the environm ent. (Id.) H e

consistently voted against budget cuts to education,social services,and health care. (Id.)B etween

2003and 2011,Y ee successfully passed 133pieces of legislation,of which100have beenchaptered

into law.(See D eclarationof Jam es A .L assart (“L assart D ec.”), Exhibit1,L eland Y ee’s L egislative

A ccom plishm ents.)Y ee has beennam ed “L egislator of the Y ear” by 17 different organiz ations.

(PSR , ¶ 115.)

Throughouthisprofessional career,and inhispersonal life,Y ee hasbeenanindependentvoice

and cham pionfor the underdog. H elping others is ingrained inhis D N A ,and,though he k nows he

m ustreceive justpunishm entforhis offense,he hopes tohave the opportunity toserve others inthe

future,as he repays his debt to society. Today,Y ee is a 67 year old m an who has accepted

responsibility forhis conductand plead guilty before this C ourt.Y ee has lead anotherwise exem plary

life asa fam ily m an,active voice forthe betterm entof society,and volunteer.


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

- 5-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

III. T H EPR O PER G U ID EL IN EC A L C U L A T IO N S FO R Y EEIN D IC A T EA SEN T EN C EBET W EEN 51-63M O N T H S

The federal sentencing G uidelines are no longer binding but advisory. (See, United States v.

Booker, 543U .S.220,244-246(U .S.2005).)“The overarching statutory charge fora districtcourtisto

im pose a sentence sufficient,butnotgreaterthannecessary… ”(United States v. Carty, 520F.3d 984,

991(9thC ir.2008)(enbanc).)Inthatspirit,the Suprem e C ourthasdirected the sentencing judge notto

presum e “that the G uidelines range is reasonable,”and instead it should “m ak e anindividualiz ed

assessm ent based onthe facts presented.” (See, Gall v. United States, 552U .S.38,52(U .S.2007)

(The sentencing judge should consider “every case as a unique study inthe hum anfailings that

som etim esm itigate,som etim esm agnify,the crim e and the punishm enttoensue”).)

Y ee respectfully subm its that the G uideline calculationset forth inthe PSR Paragraphs 59

through86should not be followed.The PSR ’s calculationis for anoffense level of 27.Y ee instead

proposes anoffense level of 24,whenthe sentencing enhancem ents noted above are excluded. The

G uideline range forY ee’sproposed offense level isbetween51-63m onths.

A . T he G overnm ent’sProposed Sentencing Enhancem entsH ave a D isproportionate EffectonY ee’sSentence and M ustBe R eviewed under a C lear and C onvincing EvidenceStandard.

Y ee accepts responsibility for the R IC O conspiracy offense conduct and only disputes the

financial and firearm enhancem ents thatthe PSR suggests.These enhancem ents are notsupported by

sufficientevidence.The 9thC ircuithas repeatedly held thatwhensentencing adjustm ents resultinan

“extrem ely disproportionate effect”onthe sentence,they m ust be provenby clear and convincing

evidence. M oreover,adjustm ents are viewed cum ulatively,not inisolation. (See, United States v.

Hopper, 177F.3d 824,832(9thC ir.1999).)1

1 Hopper (citing United States v. Restrepo,946 F. 2d 654,659-60 (9th C ir. 1991)). M oreover,adjustm ents are viewed cum ulatively,not inisolation. (See, Hopper,supra,at 832-33 (finding acom bined offense level of 7 (3 for official victim + 4 for violent conduct) satisfied Restreporequirem ent warranting a finding by clear and convincing evidence).) H ere,the G overnm ent’sproffered enhancem ents related to financial contributions and firearm s would result inanextrem elydisproportionate effect onY ee’s sentence,and should therefore be reviewed under the clear andconvincing standard.The G overnm enthas notproduced sufficientevidence tom eetthis standard,letalone the lowerpreponderance standard. (See, Restrepo,supra,at655(finding thatwhere the higherclear and convincing evidence standard does not apply,the preponderance of the evidence standardappliesinsentencing).)


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

- 6-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

H ere,the PSR ’s proffered enhancem ents related tofinancial contributions and firearm s would

result inanextrem ely disproportionate effect onY ee’s sentence,and should therefore be reviewed

under the ‘clear and convincing’ standard.The G overnm ent has not produced sufficient evidence to

m eet even the lower preponderance standard,let alone the clear and convincing standard. (See,

Restrepo, supra, at 655 (finding that where the clear and convincing standard does not apply,the

preponderance of the evidence standard appliesinsentencing).)

B. N oM onetary Enhancem entIsW arranted inC ount214.

The PSR suggests thatthe determ inationof the offense level forC ount214,18U .S.C .Section

1951: C onspiracy toO btainProperty U nderC olorof O fficial R ight,should involve anenhancem ent

for the total value of paym ents received pursuant to U .S.S.G .Section2C 1.1(b)(2). Y ee respectfully

subm its that the accurate figure is between$40,000 and $50,000,because the G overnm ent lack s

support that the alleged $60,000 contribution regarding Y ee’s vote on legislation for work ers

com pensationfor professional athletes was actually ask ed for or m ade. Specifically,Y ee objects to

the assertions inthe PSR thathe solicited $60,000.There is insufficientevidence thathe solicited or

received these funds or that he acted jointly to solicit or receive these funds. (See, Hopper and

Restrepo, supra.)

The PSR statesthataspartof hisguilty plea,“Jack sonadm itted thatonJune 22,2013,he had a

conversationwithU C E4180during whichJackson said thatY ee would accepta paym entof $60,000

inexchange for Y ee’s vote onpending legislation… ”(PSR ,¶ 32(em phasis added).) The PSR then

states that “although Y ee did not expressly com m it to receiving the $60,000 from the undercover

agent,itisclearthatY ee wasavoiding directconversationwiththe agent,and identified Jack sonasthe

personthe undercoveragentshould discussdetailswith.”(Id. atA ddendum toPSR ,¶ 4.)

These statem entsinthe PSR ack nowledge the insufficiency of the G overnm ent’sevidence with

regard tothe enhancem ent.The G overnm entproffers that$60,000is “the num ber”thatY ee accepted.

H owever,they putforthnoevidence thatY ee accepted $60,000,orthathe agreed toaccept$60,000,

eitherfrom the federal agents orfrom K eithJack son.The PSR ack nowledges thatitwas Jackson, and

notY ee,whohad a conversationwithU C E4180,and thatitwas Jackson, and notY ee,whosaid that

Y ee would accepta paym entof $60,000.


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

- 7-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

Y ee did not accept $60,000 from the federal governm ent,from the federal agents,or from

Jack son.G uideline U .S.S.G .2C 1.1(b)(2)only applies tobenefits received “inreturnfora paym ent.”

(See e.g., United States v. Pena, 268F.3d 215,218(3rd C ir.2001)(referring to“the value of the benefit

received inreturnforthe paym ent”ininterpreting Section2C 1.1(b)(2));United States v. Sapoznik, 161

F.3d 1117,1118(7th C ir.1998)(Posner,C .J.)(“The federal sentencing guidelines base the severity of

punishm entfora crim e thatinvolves tak ing bribes onthe “benefitreceived”inreturnforthe bribe).)

There was no benefit received by Y ee,the public official,inthis case,and,therefore,the benefit

should not apply. The PSR proffers that the enhancem ent includes “the value of anything to be

obtained by a public official,orothers acting with a public official.”(A ddendum toPSR ,4(em phasis

added).)H owever,there is noevidence thatthe conversationthatJack sonhad withU C E4180was a

conversationthathe was having inconcertwithY ee.Jack sonwas,as he has had a history of doing in

thiscase,acting forhisowninterestsand independently of Y ee.A dditionally,asnoted above,Y ee did

notreceive any payment from any party, letalone $60,000.Forthese reasons,the enhancem entshould

notapply.

W henthe conversations betweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4180are exam ined intheirentirety,it

becom es evident that the U C E is the one pressuring Y ee,and especially Jack son,to “give him a

num ber.”The eventual figure that Jack sonagrees withinY ee’s absence is the figure that the U C E

him self suggests. The evidence also shows Jack sonm eeting with the U C E m any tim es inY ee’s

absence,and m ak ing assertions onY ee’s behalf. W hat the evidence does not show is the PSR ’s

assertionthatitwas“clearY ee wasavoiding directconversationwiththe agent,and identified Jack son

asthe personthe undercoveragentshould discussdetailswith.”

The PSR citestothe M ay 17,2013m eeting betweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4180.D uring that

m eeting,Y ee and U C E4180are discussing a continuing relationshipand U C E4180’sfundraising,and

Y ee’s cam paignas a whole.D uring the discussion,it is Jack son,and not Y ee,who out of the blue

m entions thatU C E4180is friends withthe ownerof anN FL team .(L assartD ec., Exhibit2,FB I 302

dated M ay 17,2013.)W henA B 1309isdiscussed,U C E4180tellsY ee thatthe questionis“how m uch

doesthe vote cost?”Y ee respondsnotwitha num ber,butwitha jok e abouthaving U C E4180“tease”

hisfriend,and getting anaudience withthe 49ersplayers.N owhere inthe M ay 17conversationisthere


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

- 8-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

any m entionof purchasing Y ee’svote,oranam ountthatthe vote will cost.W henread incontext,itis

clearY ee isjok ing withthe U C E.

A fterY ee leavesthe M ay 17m eeting,the U C Eexplicitly tellsJack sontoactonhisbehalf,not

Y ee’s,stating “as long as you and I are onthe sam e page (… )thenyou cank eephim [Y ee]guided in

the correctdirection… ”(L assartD ec,Exhibit3,M ay 17,2013C onversationat02:25:43-02:26:26.)

The trend of Jack sonm ak ing assertions onY ee’s behalf inY ee’s absence continues inthe series of

m eetingsbetweenJack sonand U C E4180.

O nM ay 18,a phone conversationtak es place betweenU C E 4180 and Jack son. D uring the

conversation,U C E 4180 presses Jack sonto get Y ee to give him a num ber.Y ee is absent from this

conversation.

Jack sonthenhas several additional m eetings with U C E 4180,and it is evident during these

m eetings thathe is acting onU C E4180’s direction.O nJune 13,Jack sonand the U C Ediscuss setting

up a m eeting or conference call betweenY ee and U C E 4180’s “friend.”Y ee is absent from these

com m unications.N oevidence is presented thatthe com m unications were proposed sothatthe U C E’s

“friend”could buy Y ee’s vote. (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 4,Excerpts from G overnm ent’s R esponse to

Proposed PSR .)

O nJune 15,Jack sonand U C E4180“agree”thatthey will “discusspaym ent”on“behalf of the

team ownerand Y ee.” A gain,Y ee isabsentfrom the com m unication.N oevidence ispresented thathe

k new aboutthiscom m unication,orthathe agreed thatJack sonwould “discusspaym ent”onhisbehalf.

(L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,Excerptsfrom G overnm ent’sR esponse toProposed PSR .)

O nJune 21,Jack sonand the U C E m eet again. D uring this m eeting the U C E represents to

Jack sonthatthe source of his donations were illegitim ate.D uring the m eeting,he gives Jack soncash.

Jack sonthenasserts that“Y ee will play.”There is noevidence presented thatJack soncom m unicated

the nature of U C E4180’s donations to Y ee,or thatthe cashgiventoJack sonever m ade itto Y ee’s

cam paign.(L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,Excerptsfrom G overnm ent’sR esponse toProposed PSR .)

O ne of the only m eetings where Y ee was infactpresentwithU C E4180and Jack sonwas the

m eeting onJune 9,2013.D uring this m eeting,Y ee claim s he is m eeting withthe ownerof the 49ers.

H e alsostates itwould be greatif the U C E’s friend could “be helpful.”There is nodiscussionof the


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

- 9-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

m annerthis helpwill tak e.Y ee m ay be referring tohaving players attend his fundraisers,having the

U C E’s friend host a fundraiser,or any m anner of “being helpful.”There is no evidence inthis

conversationof Y ee’s supposed intenttoengage ina quid proquoexchange.(L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,

Excerptsfrom G overnm ent’sR esponse toProposed PSR .)

O nthe actual day which“the num ber”wasdiscussed,June 22,2013,Y ee wasonly presentfor

a portionof the m eeting and againJack sonm ak es direct assertions while Y ee is absent. W henY ee

was presentatthe m eeting,Jack son,Y ee and the U C Ediscuss A B 1309only inabstractterm s,nota

num ber. Infact while Y ee was present the U C E says that he and Jack sonhave discussed cam paign

donations.The U C Ecarefully does not give Y ee a concrete num ber,nor does Y ee give a num ber to

him . Y ee states that Jack sonis going to walk him to his car,and that Jack sonwill return. The

G overnm ent’s 302states thenthatthe “U C Eunderstood thattom eanthatJack sonwould discuss the

N FL owner’s potential donationand thenJack sonwould returnto discuss it withU C E 4180.”This

assertiondoes not m eet the clear and convincing evidence standard –the U C E’s “understanding”of

whathe didn’tsee orhearisnotenoughinthe face of hisowndecisionnottodiscussthe issue directly

withY ee.(L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,Excerptsfrom G overnm ent’sR esponse toProposed PSR .)

A fterJack sonreturns,U C E4180explicitly states “I canhelphim withthis N FL thing,buthe

[Y ee] won’t commit.” (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 5,June 22,2013 C onversationat 01:13:15-01:13:25,

em phasis added.)The undercoveragentproposes $60,000as “the num ber,”withJack sonask ing how

m uchU C E4180is willing to com m itto,and U C E4180gives Jack sonthe figure of $60,000.There

exists no evidence that Jack sonconsulted withY ee about the am ount nor is there any evidence that

Y ee wanted Jack sontosolicitfrom the U C E,noris there any evidence thatY ee wanted tosolicitany

specific am ount at all.Jack sondoes not state that Y ee told him to receive $60,000,and there is no

evidence of a com m itm entfrom Y ee thathe will receive thatam ountinexchange foranN FL -related

bill.

U C E 4180’s statem ent was correct –Yee was not committed,and Y ee did not propose the

figure of $60,000.There is noevidence thatY ee agreed withthose agents toaccepta figure ina quid

proquoexchange forhis vote.A dditionally,U C E4180did notpay any am ountof m oney,let alone

$60,000,toeitherJack sonorY ee asa resultof thisconversation.


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

- 10-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

Y ee objects to the assertionthat Jack son’s intent m ay be attributed to him as to the $60,000

figure.A ccording toU .S.S.G .§ 1B 1.3(a)(1)(B ),a base offense level should be determ ined onthe basis

of the following:

Inthe case of a jointly undertak encrim inal activity (a crim inal plan,schem e,endeavor,or enterprise undertak enby the defendant inconcertwith others,whether or not charged as a conspiracy),all reasonablyforeseeable acts and om issions of others infurtherance of the jointlyundertak encrim inal activity,thatoccurred during the com m issionof theoffense of conviction,inpreparationforthatoffense,orinthe course ofattem pting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.(U .S.S.G .§ 1B 1.3(a)(1)(B ))

The U .S.Sentencing C om m issionrecently adopted a narrowed definitionof U .S.S.G .§ 1B 1.3

regarding “jointly undertak encrim inal activity,”whichwentintoeffect N ovem ber1,2015,toclarify

that a defendant canonly be held accountable for the acts of a co-conspirator where: (1)the co-

conspirator’s acts were withinthe scope of crim inal activity that the defendant agreed to jointly

undertak e;(2)the co-conspirator’s acts were infurtherance of that crim inal activity;and (3)the co-

conspirator’s acts were reasonably foreseeable inconnectionwith that crim inal activity. (See, U.S.

Sentencing Comm’n, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,A pril 30,2015,Proposed U SSG

§ 1B 1.3,atii,1-2,available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/am endm ent-process/reader-

friendly-am endm ents/20150430_R F_A m endm ents.pdf (accessed July 20,2015); see also, United

States v. Russell 504 Fed. A ppx. 162,166-167 (3d C ir. Pa. 2012)(“[T]he loss attributable to a co-

defendantisnotnecessarily coextensive withthe breadthof the conspiracy. The G uidelinesrequire an

individualiz ed inquiry intowhetherthe lossis attributable toa specific co-defendant. A searching and

individualiz ed inquiry into the circum stances surrounding each defendant's involvem ent in the

conspiracy is critical to ensure that the defendant's sentence accurately reflects his or her role.”);

United States v. Willis 476F.3d 1121,1130(10thC ir.O k la.2007)(finding thattocalculate loss,the

court m ust m ak e particulariz ed findings about scope of the conspiratorial agreem ent because “the

‘scope of the agreem ent’ and ‘reasonable foreseeability’ are independent and necessary elem ents of

relevant conduct.”);United States v. McClatchey, 316 F.3d 1122,1129 (10th C ir 2003)(internal

quotationm ark s om itted)(“[T]he factthatthe defendantis aware of the scope of the overall operation

isnotenoughto[establishthe scope of the defendant’sagreem ent]and therefore,isnotenoughtohold


http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/amendment-process/reader-friendly-amendments/20150430_RF_Amendments.pdf





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

- 11-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

him accountable forthe activitiesof the whole operation.”(citing United States v. Campbell,279F.3d

392,400(6thC ir.2002).)

Y ee and Jack sonhad a cooperative relationship.2 H owever,this does not m eanthat every

transactioninwhichJack sonportrayed anintenttocom plete should be considered jointly undertak en

conductby Y ee,pursuanttoU .S.S.G .§ 1B 1.3. (See, Willis,supra at1130.)

A s the PSR correctly ack nowledges,“[Y ee] was not present or involved inevery discussion

withcodefendantJack sonand the undercoveragents.H e was alsonotpresentevery tim e m oney was

exchanged,noris itcertainthe collected m onies were actually provided toM r.Y ee orthe cam paign.”

(PSR ,¶ 140.)The PSR correctly notes that Y ee did not m anage Jack son. (Id., ¶52.)(It m ust be

reiterated that Jack sonwas engaged inanentirely separate conspiracy with the sam e undercover

agents.)Jack son’s intent and conduct,separately from Y ee’s,m ust be scrutiniz ed withregard to the

acceptance of “the num ber”of $60,000from U C E4180.(See, United States v. Russell, 504Fed.A ppx.

162,166-167 (3rd C ir. Pa,2012)(“A searching and individualiz ed inquiry into the circum stances

surrounding each defendant’s involvem entinthe conspiracy is critical to ensure thatthe defendant’s

sentence accurately reflects his orherrole”)(em phasis added).)W henJack son’s intentand conductin

the solicitationof the $60,000is individually exam ined,it is clear that it was Jack sonwho was the

prim ary and sole actorinthe solicitation.

The G overnm ent has not m et the burdenof clear and convincing evidence to sustainthe six

level enhancem ent inC ount 214;ask ing the C ourt to rely uponthe U C E’s “understanding”of an

exchange thatthe U C Eneithersaw norheard,and the assertions of K eithJack son,whowas a biased

and m otivated tool of U C Em ak ing assertionsonY ee’sbehalf isnotwarranted.

C . T he Enhancem entfor the T otal N um ber ofFirearm sIsBased onSpeculation,and N otanA ctual N um ber.

1. U C E4599R elied onthe A ssertionsofJack soninY ee’sA bsence.

Y ee hasaccepted responsibility fortak ing stepstoarrange deal m ak ing conversationsregarding

firearm s.H e ack nowledges his guiltunderthis charge.H owever,the G overnm enthas suggested that

2 N otably,Jack sonwasone of m any fundraisersforY ee’scam paign,and he wasneverpaid by Y ee orY ee’scam paignforhisvolunteerfundraising efforts.


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

- 12-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

the determ inationof the offense level for C ount 222 should involve anenhancem ent for the total

num ber of firearm s pursuant to U .S.S.G . Section2K 2.1(b)(1)(E).3 There is insufficient evidence to

support this enhancem ent under the ‘clear and convincing’ standard,or any other standard. (See,

Hopper, supra, at832-33,see also, Restrepo, supra, at655.)

The G overnm entclaim s thatY ee traffick ed 200firearm s.N oevidence supports a finding that

Y ee possessed,received,or transported any firearm s,let alone 200,as required by U .S.S.G .Section

2K 2.1(b)(1)(E).Infactthere isnoevidence thatY ee evenm entioned 200firearm s. The only firearm s-

related docum entinY ee’s possessionwas a listof firearm s,the U C E’s unsolicited wishlistgivento

Y ee and found inY ee’s hom e at the tim e of its searchweek s later.(L assart D ec.,Exhibit 6,L ist of

W eapons.)This listwas notauthored by Y ee –itwas authored by the U C E,and itdoes notlist200

firearm s. It contains one page and approxim ately 10 styles of firearm s,listing no inform ationabout

quantity. The list and its contents has never beenprovento have left Y ee’s house,never overheard

discussed inany wiretap,m uchlesscom m unicated ortransferred tootherstofulfill the order.

The PSR cites to conversations betweenJack son,U C E 4599,and Y ee. (See PSR , ¶ 41-49.)

W henthese conversations are exam ined indetail,they are found tobe general and lack ing indetail as

tothe developm entorim plem entationof any actual plan,agreem ent,or future actions.Infact,these

firearm s conversations are U C E-led,m uchlik e the donationconversations. A gain,as is the pattern,

m any of the conversations tak e place inY ee’s absence,withJack sonm ak ing claim s onY ee’s behalf.

Sim ply put,Y ee wasneitherthe instigatorof the firearm sdiscussion,nordid he everprom ise delivery

of any specific num berof firearm s.Infactasthe case isexam ined inwhole the actual sale and transfer

of firearm sdid tak e place –butnotwithoraround Y ee,and notinhisconspiracy.

The firstconversationcited inthe PSR regarding firearm s is betweenJack sonand U C E4599,

and tak es place onA ugust 2,2013. (See PSR ,¶ 42.)The A ugust 2,2013 302 is about a m eeting

betweenU C E 4599,K eith Jack son,and B randonJack son. (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 7,FB I 302 dated

A ugust 2,2013.) The m eeting prim arily involves B randonJack sonand the U C E discussing the

purchase of illegal weapons and cocaine. D uring the m eeting,K eith Jack sontells U C E 4599 that

3The G overnm entseek sa 10level enhancem entbased onitsproffered 200firearm sfigure.


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

- 13-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

L eland Y ee is associated with an“unidentified R ussianindividual who was aninternational arm s

dealer.”H e thenrepresents tothe U C Ethatthe R ussian“had a containerfull of large scale weapons.”

N odetailsare givenand Y ee isnotpresent.

The PSR thenrefers to m eetings betweenthe U C E and K eithJack soninD ecem ber of 2013.

(See PSR ,¶ 44.)This incom plete chronology fails toreference several conversations betweenJack son

and the U C Ethatillustrate the patternof the U C Eleading the arm s traffick ing discussionand Jack son

m ak ing claim sonY ee’sbehalf,all the while inhisabsence.

W hatism issing inthe chronology isthe A ugust5,2013m eeting betweenU C E4599and K eith

and B randonJack son,where the U C E arranges to purchase weapons from B randonJack son. It is

during this m eeting thatK eithJack sontells the U C Ethathe has spok entoY ee aboutthe unidentified

R ussianand is setting upa m eeting withhim .O nA ugust8,2013,whenthe U C Eis againpurchasing

firearm s from B randon Jack son,K eith Jack son tells the U C E that he and Y ee are m eeting the

unidentified R ussianarm sdealer.

O nA ugust11,2013withY ee still absent,Jack sontellsthe U C Ethathe isattem pting tosetup

a m eeting,butY ee wanted tobe cautious.Thisrepresentationism ade during Jack son’sinvolvem entin

a m oney laundering conspiracy with the U C E and other defendants. O nSeptem ber 13,2013 and

O ctober17,2013,Jack soncontinues torepresentthatY ee k nows the R ussian,thatthe R ussianis the

“real deal.” O n Septem ber13,while Jack son and the U C E are discussing m arijuana traffick ing,

Jack sonstill claim s tobe setting upa m eeting.(L assartD ec,Exhibit8,FB I 302dated Septem ber13,

2013.)O nO ctober 17,Jack sonand the U C E are discussing cocaine traffick ing,and once again

Jack sonm ak esassertionsonbehalf of the R ussiangundealer. (L assartD ec,Exhibit9,FB I 302dated

O ctober17,2013.)

Ina D ecem ber3m eeting referenced inthe PSR ,the focus of the U C Eand Jack sonis cocaine

traffick ing and m urderforhire.(PSR ,¶ 44.)N eitherof these activities have anything todowithY ee

norare they charged inY ee’s conspiracy.D uring the m eeting,Jack sonclaim s he is m ak ing progress

toward a m eeting withthe R ussian.

This patterncontinues to the next m eetings referenced inthe PSR .(PSR , ¶ 45.)A s the PSR

correctly notes,the U C E 4599was paying Jack son.(“A tanotherm eeting betweenU C E4599,K eith


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

- 14-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

Jack sonand B randonJack sononD ecem ber13,2013… U C E4599provided K eithJack sonwith$1000

as incentive for setting up a m eeting with the arm s dealer.”(Id.;L assart D ec,Exhibit 10,FB I 302

dated D ecem ber13,2013.)

D uring a D ecem ber17,2013m eeting,Jack sonaccepted a paym entfrom U C E4599,allegedly

for Y ee,and said that he would m ak e sure the m eeting with “the R ussian”occurred. (L assart D ec,

Exhibit11,FB I 302dated D ecem ber17,2013.)A s the PSR correctly points out,as “a m eeting with

the arm s dealerkept being postponed by Jackson, U C E-4599told Jack sonand B randonJack sonthat

the cocaine deal would be delayed until the meeting with the arms dealer materialized.”(PSR ,¶ 45

(em phasis added).) This statem entillustrates the am ountof leverage thatthe U C Ewas using overthe

m oney-strapped Jack son,and the extent to whichhe controlled Jack son’s illicit activities to include

withholding m onetary supportof Jack sonuntil he delivered Y ee.

O nD ecem ber19,2013,the PSR states thatagents “surveilled Y ee and Jack sonm eeting with

L eonR ader,whois believed tobe the R ussianarm s dealerwhoJack sonwas referring topreviously.”

(Id.)The PSR does not include the relevant details of this m eeting: that the G overnm ent surveilled

Y ee and K eith Jack sonwhenthey went to “A rt inStone M onum ents,”R adar’s long established

businessinC olm a,C alifornia.

Infact,M r.R aderisa longtim e acquaintance of Y ee,and he isthe founderand designerof A rt

inStone M onum ents,which“specializ es ingranite and m arble m em orials.”The G overnm enthas had

all of the inform ationthey would need toidentify M r.R aderassom eone involved ininternational arm s

traffick ing.Tothis day,there is noindicationorany disclosed discovery of any inform ationattaching

M r.R adertointernational arm straffick ing orany businessotherthana stone carver.

The PSR is inaccurate in its portrayal that “initially,K eith Jack son played the role of

interm ediary,asY ee was the connectiontothe firearm sdealer,and the num erousdiscussionsbetween

Jack son,Y ee and U C E4599reflectthatthey intended todoa sale of large quantitiesof weapons.” (Id.

at ¶ 43.)A s the conversations are exam ined indetail it establishes that there is no evidence of any

conversationbetweenJack son,Y ee and the U C E.There is only Jack son’s repeated assertions to the

U C E (the m anwho is paying him to set up Y ee)that he will accom plishthe set up.M oreover,the

subtextis,if he doesnot,Jack son’ssource of m oney will evaporate.


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

- 15-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

2. T he L ater C onversationsBetweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4599Illustrate Y ee’sL ack ofD esire or IntenttoC arry O utthe A lleged 200W eaponT raffick ing.

The G overnm ent has never produced any evidence indiscovery that dem onstrates a viable

possibility thatY ee had the intentionorthe m eans eithertocom plete a 200firearm transferorthathe

took steps to possess the arm s. EvenwhenY ee eventually m eets with Jack sonand U C E 4599,his

conversations,when exam ined,illustrate his lack of k nowledge of firearm s. D uring these

conversations,the patternof the U C E’s assertiveness inthe m eetings,and his pressure onothers

continues.The num ber200(orany greaternum ber)isneversaid inany conversationthatY ee haswith

the U C E and Jack son,nor is it writteninany docum ent.The only docum ent is the U C E’s weapons

wishlist.

Y ee eventually m eets with Jack sonand U C E 4599 onJanuary 22,2014. (See PSR ,¶ 46.)

D uring thism eeting,there isnom entionof the num berof weaponsthatU C E4599wantstopurchase;

the num ber 200is never m entioned.The U C E ask s Y ee for a face-to-face withR ader,stating “(… )

we’re talk ing m illions of dollars here.(… )it’s a very com plexdeal (… )he’s [Y ee] going toneed to

talk withm e atsom e point(… )because you’re notgonna be able toanswerthe questions.”(L assart

D ec.,Exhibit12,January 22,2014C onversationat0:49:43-0:50:30.)The U C Ecom m ents toY ee that

he wants “autom atic weapons.”Y ee tells him that“Thatk ind of detail (… )”canbe work ed outwith

“L eon”[R ader]. (Id., Exhibit 13,January 22,2014 C onversationat 1:02:42-1:03:27.)Y ee does not

pretend to have any idea of the num ber of weapons the U C E intends to acquire or how m uchthose

weapons cost.Instead,the conversationillustrates Y ee’s lack of detailed understanding and a desire to

leave “the details”tothe U C Eand the arm sdealer.

Twodayslater,U C E4599m eetswithK eithJack son.The U C EpressuresJack sontoorganiz e a

m eeting withR ader,stating “I k now you’re gonna m ak e this happen. B ecause I need it. I need this

happen within the next (… ) week and half,two week s.” (Id., Exhibit 14,January 24,2014

C onversationat01:12:05-01:12:23.)The U C Estates thathe has look ed upR ader: “I look ed him up-

he owns a place in… I justput“L eon”“C olm a”?”(Id., Exhibit15,January 24,2014C onversationat

00:14:55-00:15:05.)The U C Eadditionally claim s he is aware of the dentist,D r.W ilsonL im (“L im ”).

(Id., Exhibit16,January 24,2014C onversationat00:18:05-00:18:19.)


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

- 16-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

D espite the U C E’s awareness of R aderand L im ’s back grounds,the U C Econtinues torespond

toJack son’sassertionina January 24conversationthatbothL im and R aderare the real deal.The U C E

continues to pursue the transactionwhich now includes a R ussianartisanand anelderly Filipino

dentist.

A series of m eetings betweenY ee,the U C E and Jack sonall follow the sam e tenor;the U C E

steering the discussionand Y ee avoiding concrete dates or com m itm ents. D uring a February 25

m eeting and before Y ee arrives,the U C E pressures Jack sonfor a face-to-face withR ader. H e tells

Jack son,“I’ve putm y fuck ing nam e and m y reputationoutthere … and now I’m going tolook lik e a

fuck ing jerk ?”,to whichJack sonresponds “I’ve put a lot of work into this –I told him too,I said,

M an,I need this too.”(Id., Exhibit 17,February 25,2014C onversationat 00:17:40-00:18:20.)It is

apparentthey are joined inpurpose.

W henY ee arrives atthe m eeting,there is nodiscussionof the actual num berof weapons the

U C Ewants.The U C Eadvises Y ee thathe wants a sam ple orderof atleasttwom illiondollars,and a

containerfull of A K s.There isnostatem entof how m any guns2m illiondollarswill purchase orhow

m any A K scanfitintoa container,noristhere any agreem ent.InfactY ee rejectsthe proposal tom ove

forward,and tells the U C E he will do “sm all deals”to beginwith,and he postpones any im m ediate

actionand tells him that“If anything is going tohappen,itwill probably nothappenuntil the end of

thisyearornextyear.” (Id., Exhibit18,February 25,2014C onversationat00:52:20-00:52:51.)

O nM arch5,Jack soninform s the U C EthatR aderwill nolongerbe the source of the firearm s.

(See PSR ,¶ 48.)Instead,Jack sontells the U C E the source is the elderly Filipino dentist. Jack son

claim s the drastic swap is the result of unrest inthe U k raine.The U C E does not react other thanto

pressure Jack sonand Y ee fora face-to-face m eeting withthe elderly dentist.(L assartD ec., Exhibit19,

M arch5,2014C onversationat00:17:26-00:18:46.)

Y ee discusses that D r. L im has connections to the Southernpart of the Philippines,and the

“M uslim ” extrem ists that live there. (Id., Exhibit 20,M arch 5,2014 C onversation at 00:48:30-

00:50:20.)Y ee provides nodetailsastothe “M uslim s’”identity,the weaponsthey have,orhow those

weapons would be traffick ed. The U C E againexpresses his desire to purchase two m illiondollars’

worthof weapons.A s the PSR correctly notes,Y ee thenm entioned that 100rifles m ay be available


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

- 17-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

(see PSR at¶ 48);atno point isthe number 200 mentioned. A dditionally,Y ee’sam ateurunderstanding

of weapons is displayed when,after hearing the am ount of two m illiondollars,he m entions 100,

m eaning 100rifles fortwom illiondollars and thencom m ents,“that’s probably toom uch.”The U C E

evenasserts his willingness to “scale back ”the first deal.(L assart D ec., Exhibit 21,M arch5,2014

C onversationat 01:06:15-01:06:50.)This entire exchange illustrates Y ee’s lack of k nowledge of

weapons and theirvalue aswell asthe agent’s agreem enttoany sale including a “sm all deal.” A tany

rate there wasneitherthe m entionnorforeseeability of 200weapons.

Inthe M arch 11,2014 m eeting,the PSR states that “Jackson admitted that he and Y ee had

arranged the m eeting with the intentionthat U C E 4599 would be able to utiliz e introductionand

arrangem ents from Jack son,Y ee and L im topurchase quantities of weapons… from otherindividuals

inthe Philippines… Jackson agreed thatthe U C Eadvised him ,Y ee and L im that… U C E4599wanted

autom atic weapons… ”(See PSR ,¶ 41(em phasisadded).)

D uring the M arch11m eeting betweenJack son,Y ee,L im and U C E4599,the U C Eagainsteers

the conversation.Y ee expresses his repeated reluctance to m ove forward withany deal,stating “we

cannotdoanything until afterthe election.”H e alsorepeatsthata sm all deal isbest,telling the U C Eto

“ordera little,don’tordera lot.” (L assartD ec., Exhibit22,M arch11,2014C onversationat1:14:45-

1:16:45.)

W henthe U C Eask s aboutnextsteps,Y ee goes as faras totell him thatD r.L im has totravel

with him ,and that he won’t be ready to go until N ovem ber,over sixm onths from the tim e of the

m eeting.The U C Ethengets angry withY ee,stating “Y ou’re always pulling the bull shitm an.” (Id.,

Exhibit23,M arch11,2014C onversationat1:24:00-1:25:18.)The U C Econtinues toshow his anger

towards Y ee’s delay: “Sothe nextsteps are,(… )adhering toyouralm ighty tim efram e,I understand

that,but what I’d at least lik e to do is (… )to give you a list.” (Id., Exhibit 24,M arch 11,2014

C onversationat1:34:00-1:34:30.)

A fterY ee leaves the m eeting,the U C Econtinues toshow his anger,ask ing Jack son“whatthe

fuck is the difference”withregard to the tim eline.(Id., Exhibit 25,M arch11,2014C onversationat

1:45:08-1:45:43.)H e also delivers a m onologue regarding his belief that Y ee is incontrol and has

m ultiple ports inthe Philippines.(Id., Exhibit 26,M arch11,2014C onversationat 1:47:08-1:47:57.)


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

- 18-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

These verbal conclusions by the U C E are not discussed inY ee or D r. L im ’s presence. N or are the

quantity of weapons the U C E hopes to acquire. Infact,the G overnm ent’s agents have interviewed

A nna M aria L eon,whoconfirm ed Y ee and L im ’spasttravel tothe Philippineswastocreate a clinic to

provide dialysis,not firearm s purchase.(Id., Exhibit 27,G overnm ent Interview of A nna M aria L eon

302dated A ugust8,2014.)

Evenduring the final m eeting onM arch14,2014,whenthe U C EprovidesY ee the listof types

of weapons,there isnom entionof the num berof weaponsthatthe U C Ewantsfrom D r.L im .

W henthese conversations are listened to together,they support the conclusionthat Y ee was

following U C E 4599’s urgings and m inim iz ed and delayed every dem and. Y ee portrayed no

k nowledge of the firearm s traffick ing trade and was unaware of their value or worth. The U C E

provided a specific quantity of firearm sand the listhe provided doesnotlead toany concrete num ber.

Y ee did not agree to or evenutter that he would or could provide 200 firearm s and outside of

speculation,the G overnm enthasnoconcrete proof of any traffick ing of 200firearm s.

3. Federal C ase L aw Illustratesthe Insufficiency ofthe Evidence againstY ee withR egard tothe Enhancem entunder C ount222.

The Federal C ourts have interpreted the sufficiency of evidence required to support such an

enhancem ent.InUnited States v. Longstreet, 603F.3d 273(5thC ir.2010),the FifthC ircuitfound that

such a tenlevel increase was inappropriate. InLongstreet, the D efendant’s husband adm itted to

G overnm ent agents that he traffick ed over 300 guns from the tim e period of 1998-2005. The

D efendantdid notjoinhis conspiracy until 2001,and personally purchased 45firearm s infurtherance

of it.(Id. at278.)The D istrictC ourtdeem ed the connectionbetweenthe D efendantand herhusband,

whom she begandating in1999,tobe “sufficient”to“m ak e heraccountable forhisconduct.”(Id.)The

Fifth C ircuit disagreed,finding that there was no evidence that the D efendant conspired with her

husband priorto2001despite this “connection.”The C ourtstated that“absent particularized findings

that [the D efendant] was actually involved in[her husband’s] activities prior to 2001 or that the

[defendant] was otherwise responsible for m ore than200 firearm s… the present record provides no

justifiable basis for the district court’s ten level increase.” (Id. at279(em phasisadded).)

United States v. Anton illustrates the type of evidence sufficienttouphold suchanincrease for


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

- 19-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

the possessionof 200orm ore firearm s.(United States v. Anton, 353Fed A ppx.343(11th C ir.2009).)

InAnton, the D efendantactually possessed 347firearm s,and told this toanA TFA gent.(Id. at344.)

The A TF additionally found 23,000 rounds of am m unitionat the D efendant’s residence,as well as

ledgers thatcontained detailed descriptions of several hundred firearm s inthe D efendant’s possession.

(Id. at 345.)The Eleventh C ircuit found that the ledgers and am ount of am m unitionfound at the

D efendant’s hom e corroborated his statem ent that he possessed 347 firearm s,and thus the

enhancem entcould be upheld.(Id.)

Y ee’s conduct inthis case is rem ark ably less thanthat of the defendants inboth Anton and

Longstreet. U nlik e the D efendants inLongstreet and Anton, Y ee neverpossessed any firearm s inthe

entire case,nor inthe searchof his prem ises,let alone traffick ed inweapons.Y ee certainly had no

detailed ledgers of hundreds of firearm s orthousands of rounds of am m unitioninhis possession,and

aside from his abstract conversations withthe U C E and Jack son,Y ee never engaged inany sort of

overtacttofurtherthe alleged conspiracy.Y ee neverdiscussed a concrete num berof weapons to be

purchased or traffick ed,and dem onstrated num erous tim es the lack of any urgency to carry through

any sort of m ajor firearm s deal. For the foregoing reasons,the enhancem ent proffered by the

G overnm entand PSR isinsufficiently supported.

IV . T H ESEN T EN C IN G C R IT ER IA O F18U .S.C .SEC T IO N 3553A L SO PO IN TT O W A R D S A SEN T EN C IN G O FBET W EEN 57-51M O N T H S

The G uidelines calculationis only a “starting point”to the sentencing calculation. (See, e.g.

United States v. Espinoza-Cano, F.3d 1126,1128(9th C ir.2006).)Inthe wak e of Booker, a trial court

m ay not “presum e that the G uidelines range is reasonable.”(Gall v. United States, 552U .S.38,50

(U .S. 2007).)It m ust m ak e anindividualiz ed assessm ent of the appropriate sentence based onthe

particular facts of the case and the defendant’s circum stances,inlight of the factors set forthin18

U .S.C .Section3553(a).(United States v. Carty, 520F.3d 984,991(9thC ir.2008)(enbanc).)Though

C ourtsoftenbeginwitha G uideline calculation,the calculationm ay not“be givenm ore orlessweight

thanany other”sentencing factorsof 18U .S.C .Section3553(a).(Id.)

The overarching principle inthe analysis is thatthe C ourt“shall im pose a sentence sufficient,

butnotgreaterthannecessary,tocom ply withthe purposes [of sentencing].”(Id.; see also 18U .S.C .


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

- 20-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

Section3553(a).)This is especially im portant where,as here,the recom m ended G uideline range is

driveninlarge partby the unprovenenhancem entfigures.

18U .S.C .Section3553(a)requires thatthe foursentencing factors,discussed below,be given

equal weight as the guidelines. The PSR also correctly notes that “a downward variance m ay be

considered due tothe history and characteristicsof the D efendant.” (See PSR ,¶ 141.)

A . N ature and C ircum stancesofthe O ffense

A s the PSR states,“Pursuant to 18U .S.C . § 3553(a)(1),the nature and circum stances of the

offense,a downward variance m ay be warranted inthiscase.” (PSR ,¶ 140.)

The PSR ack nowledges that Y ee was not present or involved inall of Jack son’s discussions

withundercoveragents,orpresenteachtim e Jack sonreceived m oney from those agents.(Id.)The PSR

alsoack nowledges thatitis notcertainthatthe m oney collected by Jack sonwas actually received by

Y ee orhiscam paign.(Id.)

Jack son’s contactwiththe undercoveragents was incredibly frequent,typically m ultiple tim es

perday.(L assartD ec.,e.g.,Exhibit28,five recordings of conversations thattook place on9/23/2011,

and Exhibit 29,ten recordings of conversations that took place on 2/27/2012.) D uring his

conversationswiththe undercoveragents,Jack sonfrequently asserted thatY ee would acceptoffersthe

agentsputforth,withoutconsulting Y ee.(PSR ,¶ 140;see also,L assartD ec.,Exhibit30,June 22,2013

C onversationat1:10:50-1:16:50.)There is noevidence thatY ee had k nowledge of the term s of these

offers,or that Jack sonwas entering into agreem ents allegedly onhis direction. A lthough Y ee and

Jack sonwere associates,there is no evidence that Y ee retained Jack sonor supplied him with the

authority to act as his agent or m ak e representations onhis behalf for all purposes. O ften,Jack son

accepted m oney from the agentswhichthe agentsrepresented wastogotoY ee and hiscam paign.This

paym entsystem whenexam ined increases the lik elihood thatnotall the m oney collected by Jack son

wasactually received by Y ee orhiscam paign.Y ee wasnotpresentduring these interactions,and there

is no evidence that all of the m oney given to Jack son for Y ee’s cam paign ever left Jack son’s

possession.

A dditionally,Jack sonwas paid by the undercover agents to advance their agendas. These

agendas included getting Y ee to arrange m eetings,m ak e phone calls,or tak e other actions onthe


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

- 21-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

agents’ behalf suchas tobribe Y ee todotheirbidding.Jack sonentered intoform al agreem ents with

several of the undercover agents onbehalf of his business,Jack sonC onsultancy. These agents paid

Jack sonregularly from 2011until charges were broughtagainsthim .(L assart D ec.,e.g.,Exhibit 31,

B atesU S 607256;Exhibit32,B atesU S 601194;Exhibit33,B atesU S 601249.)Thispaym entsystem

encouraged Jack sontoplease the agentswithhissuccessand provide inform ationthatY ee waswilling

toengage inactivitiesand m ak e agreem ents.

The PSR is correct in ack nowledging that Y ee’s lim ited involvem ent and awareness of

Jack son’sinteractionswiththe undercoveragentswarrantsa downward variance.

B. Section3553(a)(1):Y ee’sH istory and C haracteristics

Booker, supra, at 259-260 requires considerationof “The history and characteristics of the

defendant.”(See 18U .S.C .§ 3553(a).)W here the factsof the defendant’sexem plary characteristicsdo

not rationally square witha recom m ended G uideline sentence,a court m ay im pose a non-G uideline

sentence ora significantdeparture.(See,United States v. Gupta,904F.Supp.2d 349,353(S.D .N .Y .

2012);see also, United States v. Adelson, 441F.Supp.2d 506(S.D .N .Y .2006).)

InGupta, the defendantwasconvicted of one countof conspiracy and three countsof securities

fraud. (See, Gupta, at 350.)Probationrecom m ended a 30 point sentence,but the C ourt im posed a

below-G uideline sentence of twoyearsinprison,and one yearof supervised release,because the facts

of the case,and the defendant’s exem plary history of good work s,did not rationally square withthe

G uideline sentence.(Id. at354-55.)Sim ilarly,inUnited States v. Adelson, the defendant,a C O O ,was

convicted of conspiracy,securities fraud,and three counts of false filing,but the C ourt rejected the

proposed G uideline sentence. (Adelson, supra,at 507.)The C ourt found that A delsonjoined a pre-

existing conspiracy,and thathe led an“exem plary life”and thusdiscarded the G overnm ent’sproffered

sentence,whichwould have resulted inthe defendant’slife im prisonm ent,infavorof a three and a half

yearsentence and significantrestitution.(Id. at513-514.)

The C ourt in Adelson found that the relevant “history and characteristics” included the

defendant’s long history of good deeds forothers,his integrity and generosity,and his overall “deep

hum anity.”(Id.)


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

- 22-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

1. Exem plary C haracter

A s his character letters subm itted herewith dem onstrate,the offense conduct inthis case is

aberrational oratypical inthe contextof Y ee’s life. L ik e the defendants inGupta and Adelson,Y ee’s

exem plary characterand 40-yearcareerof serving others warrants a below-G uideline sentence of not

m ore than51-63 m onths,or a m ore significant departure. Y ee respectfully requests that the single

countoffense be judged inthe contextof the following exam plesof hiswork and character.

Y ee has devoted his entire professional life,beginning as early as his college studies,to the

service of others. H e beganhis careerwork ing withm ental healthpatients and childrenas a clinical

and school psychologist. D uring this tim e,he held leadership positions with 45 volunteer

organiz ations,largely inthe areas of public educationand com m unity m ental health.A s a letterfrom

M rs.Y ee attests,Y ee wasreluctanttorunforthe B oard of EducationinSanFrancisco,butdid sodue

tothe factthathe cared very m uchforthe youthof the C ity.(See L assartD ec.,Exhibit34,p.173-174.)

This level of caring is evidenced throughout Y ee’s political career. Y ee has a consistent record of

voting for bills providing m ental health funding,work ing to advance civil rights,and increasing

transparency ineducation. D uring his tim e as a State Senator,Y ee passed bills funding dom estic

violence shelters,ending sentencing of life without the possibility of parole for youthoffenders,and

protecting childrenfrom hum antraffick ing.

Y ee’s passionfor helping others has translated beyond his com m unity as well.A letter from

R ay M ascarinasdiscussesa projectY ee wasem bark ing uponwithD r.W ilsonL im .(See L assartD ec.,

Exhibit34,p.108.)D r.L im ,whoatthe tim e had k idney problem s,wasundergoing dialysisona daily

basis.(Id.)H e indicated toY ee thatwhile inA m erica dialysis is fairly routine,those inhis hom etown

inthe Philippineshave totravel m any m ilestoM anila toreceive it,and m ostof the tim e are unable to

doso.(Id.)Y ee thenoffered tohelpD r.L im toestablisha non-profitdialysis clinic inhis hom etown,

and ask ed D a V ita todonate som e of theirold dialysis m achines tothe clinic. (Id.)A lthoughD r.L im

haspassed away,Y ee isdeterm ined tocontinue tohelpthese dialysispatientsinthe Philippines.

Y ee has lived his life guided by the principles of equality,hum ility,com passion,and

independence. A sjusta few exam plesfrom the characterletterssubm itted herewithdem onstrate:


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

- 23-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

SherlynC hew –C hew has k nownY ee for m ore than55 years,attended m iddle school and college with him ,and was acolleague inO U SD . She reports that Y ee helped hundreds ofstudents withspecial needs. O na personal note,Y ee counseledC hew and herson,withoutcharge,whenC hew’s husband passedaway.

Paul D eM eester –D eM eester is a friend and anattorney. H erelaysthe following story,“InD ecem berof 2005,I turned tohimwith a suggestionfor legislationafter K atina B ritt,anindigentclient of m ine,had been wronged in the San M ateo C ountySuperior C ourt. A state judge had interpreted a statute thatallowed jailing of a dom estic violence victim /witness whorefused totestify if there had beenanearliernon-jailing sanctionim posed … I sought L eland’s help inclarifying the legislation.”H e says that Y ee “wondered why dom estic violence victim scould notbe putinthe sam e positionassexassaultvictim swhenitcam e tosuchvictim snotwanting totestify.”Eventually,Y ee’sbill,Senate B ill 1356,passed and was signed into law byG overnor A rnold Schwarz enegger in 2008. “The bill typifiedwhat L eland Y ee’s public service was all about. H e helped apowerlesswom anbecause he feltitwasthe rightthing todo.”

R ay M ascarinas –M ascarinas is a friend.H e describes how Y eehelped a m utual friend,D r. W ilsonL im ,who was undergoingdialysisona regularbasis,establisha non-profitdialysisclinic inhis hom etown and obtain second hand dialysis m achines.“SenatorL eland was som oved by the projectthathe offered hishelp to D r. L im in finding a donor for those second handm achines. Senator L eland ask ed ‘D a V ita’ to donate som e oftheir old m achines and get them refurbished. D r. L im was sohappy thathe told the Senatorthathe will fly to his hom e townand prepare the clinic toreceive the m achinesassoonaspossible.I wentwithD r.L im toaccom pany him as soonas his physiciangave him the clearance to travel to the Philippines. SenatorL eland,as a good friend,showed his support to D r. L im andfollowed us withinthe week paying for his trip. D r. L im gaveSenator L eland a tour of the province (C ebu and M indanao)where the Senatorgottosee the poverty of the m asses and howhisprojectisgoing tohelpthem .”

B arbara Perz igian–Perz igianis a form ercam paignadvisor.Shesays thatY ee “cares aboutpeople som uchthathe tak es the tim eto do the unexpected.” She also notes that Y ee shared withherhis m otivationto help others cam e from early childhood,“H etold m e his m em ories of watching wealthy wom endisrespecthism otherand how he was forced tositoutside of the hom es whilehis m other cleaned because he was not allowed into the hom es.H e told m e abouthow the residents of these hom es would com eand gofrom the houses pushing the little boy aside as if he waslessthana real person.L eland nevertold anyone these storiesandhe certainly never harbored anim osity toward any group ofpeople as a result.B ut it was life experiences suchas these thatm ade L eland the guy whoneveroverlook ed,and always wantedtohelp,the un-represented of the com m unity.”


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

- 24-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

A lexSowyrda –Sowydra is Y ee’s form er staffer. H e believesthat Y ee’s actions were not representative of Y ee’s character orintentions.Specifically,he feelsthatY ee wanted tohelpotherssom uch that Y ee rejected the private sector for m ore m oneybecause he wanted toserve the interestsof the people.M oreover,he believes that“once this case is behind him he will continue tobe a positive role m odel inthe com m unity and will find a way tohelppeople because thatiswhathe hasalwaysdone.”

Y ee im parted these values of serving his com m unity and standing upforothers tohis fam ily.

H e instilled the im portance of helping others to his children. Y ee begantak ing his four childrenon

com m unity service trips and having them participate incom m unity service activities from very young

ages. (See L assartD ec.,Exhibit34,p.173-174).Y ee hasstrong tiestohisfam ily.Inadditiontobeing

m arried for43yearsand having fourchildren,Y ee alsohasa three-year-old granddaughterwithwhom

he isvery close.4(Id.)

The PSR is correct inack nowledging that Y ee’s exem plary character and M rs.Y ee’s severe

m edical conditionwarranta downward variance.

2. Exem plary Service tothe C om m unity

Y ee has devoted his entire professional life topublic service.A lthoughhis involvem entinthis

offense occurred atthe end of this tenure as a State Senator,his accom plishm ents while serving as a

State Senator,aswell before and beyond,are rem ark able and should be considered inthe contextof his

sentencing.

The PSR incorrectly asserts that “m uch of [Y ee’s] good work s are directly related to his

em ploym ent,and are notseenasm itigating factors.” (See PSR ,Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 3.)

A s his bill passage rate dem onstrates,and the PSR also acknowledges, Y ee has had one of the best

track records ingetting his bills passed and signed intolaw.H e has successfully passed 133pieces of

legislation,100of whichhave beenchaptered intolaw.(Id. atPage 29,¶ 115.)These billshave had the

4 The G overnm entrecently inform ed D efense C ounsel thatthey would be referencing inform ationintheir Sentencing M em orandum in regard to a relationship between Y ee and another wom an.Presum ably,thisinform ationism eanttochallenge Y ee’scredibility and dedicationtohisfam ily. Y eeack nowledgesthisrelationship,whichlasted overa year,and alsonotesthatthe wom aninquestionhasreached outtohim toofferherfull supportand express herregrets inregard towhatshe specificallytold the G overnm ent,whichshe feels is inaccurate,atbest.Y ee will furtheraddress this issue inreplytothe G overnm ent’sSentencing M em orandum if the G overnm entchoosestoreference thisim m aterialinform ation.


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

- 25-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

purpose of aiding ineducation,dom estic violence relief program s,and healthcare thanm ostany other

senators. A dditionally,he has beenanactive volunteer inthe com m unity for years,long before his

“em ploym ent”required it.Thus,hisgood work s,discussed infurtherdetail below,m ustbe considered

asm itigating factorsunderSection3553.

A fterserving fouryears inthe C alifornia State A ssem bly,Y ee was elected tothe State Senate

in N ovem ber 2006 with the largest winning percentage for any D em ocratic candidate with a

R epublicanchallenger. In2010,Y ee was re-elected,receiving the m ost votes of any D em ocratic

legislator inthe State and garnering the largest winning percentage of any Senate candidate onthe

ballotinC alifornia.R epresenting D istrict8,whichincludesSanFranciscoand SanM ateoC ounty,Y ee

isthe firstC hinese A m ericaneverelected tothe C alifornia State Senate.

D uring his tenure inthe L egislature,Y ee foughtforchildren,m ental healthservices,work ing

fam ilies,seniors,education,opengovernm ent,consum erprotection,civil rights,and the environm ent.

H e consistently voted againstbudgetcutstoeducation,social services,and healthcare.

Since 2003,Y ee has beenone of the m ost active contributors to the State legislature and an

active voice forsocial equality.

Som e of hism ostim portantlegislative contributionsinclude:

2010: SB 650provides legal protections forU C em ployees whoare retaliated againstforreporting illegal orim properactions.

2009: SB 13 restores $16.3 m illionfor 94 dom estic violencesheltersand centersthroughoutC alifornia.

2008: SB 1356 protects dom estic violence survivors from thethreat of incarceration when they refuse to testify about them atterincourt.

• 2007:

o SB 190 – the H igher Education G overnanceA ccountability A ct,brings m ajortransparency reform s tothe governing boards of the U niversity of C alifornia andC alifornia State U niversity.

o SB 999 – to end the sentencing of life without thepossibility of parole foryouthoffenders.

2006: A B 2581 m ade C alifornia the first state inthe nationtospecifically prohibit censorship of college student press,including school newspapersand broadcastjournalism .


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

- 26-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

2005: A B 1179 protects childrenfrom the harm ful effects ofultra-violentvideogam es.

2004: A B 3042 helps protect children from being exploitedthroughprostitution.

Y ee has beennam ed “L egislator of the Y ear”by 17 different organiz ations,including the

C alifornia School Em ployeesA ssociation,C alifornia Psychiatric A ssociation,C alifornia Partnershipto

End D om estic V iolence,SanFranciscoW om en’sPolitical C om m ittee,C alifornia Faculty A ssociation,

and the A m ericanFederationof State,C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees.(Id.)

For his legislative and com m unity efforts,Y ee has also beenhonored withdoz ens of awards

from suchorganiz ations as the N ational EducationA ssociation,SanFranciscoC ollaborative A gainst

H um anTraffick ing,and Equality C alifornia.(Id.)

C . A Sentence of51-63M onthsIsA ll thatIsN eeded toA ccom plishD istributive Justice andA void U ndue D isparitiesunder 18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(6)

Y ee’ssentence should be considerably lessand,atm ost,nom ore thanthatof otherparticipants

inthis case or other sim ilarly situated defendants. D istrict courts m ay consider the need to avoid

unwarranted disparities betweencodefendants whoare sim ilarly situated and m ay com pare defendants

whendeciding a sentence. (See,United States v. Smart,518F.3d 800,804(10thC ir.2008);see also,

United States v. Parker,462F.3d 273,277(3d.C ir.2006).) H ere,based onthe factorssetforthinthe

“N ature & C ircum stances of the O ffense” sectionabove,both Y ee’s substantial contributions to

society and hislim ited scope m ustbe considered.

H is sentence should be less and certainly no m ore thanothers,including Jack son.W hile the

PSR ’ssentencing calculationcorrectly statesthatitsrecom m endationsare atthe lowerend of the Total

O ffense L evel of 27,italsoexplicitly states thatY ee “was notpresentorinvolved inevery discussion

with K eith Jack sonand the undercover agents. H e was also not present every tim e m oney was

exchanged,nor is it certainthe collected m onies were actually provided to Y ee or the cam paign.

Further,K eithJack son’sinvolvem entwasm uchm ore involved withthe C hee K ung Tong.” (See PSR ,

Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 2.)

The PSR is correct that under 18 U .S.C . § 3553(a)(6),“the sentence should consider the

need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities am ong defendants with sim ilar records who have


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

- 27-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

beenfound guilty of sim ilarconduct.”Inthe instantcase,Y ee’s actions and the charges againsthim

are quite lim ited whencom pared toJack son’s.

The PSR correctly ack nowledges thatJack sonhad aninvolved role inthe C hee K ung T ong

(“C K T ”),D efendant C how’s organiz ation. (PSR ,Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 2,¶ 3.)The

PSR states that“Jack sonwas a consultantto the C K T,”and thathe had a positionsim ilarto U C E

4599,whowas inducted intothe C K T.(PSR ,¶ 22.)Y ee,incontrast,had norole inthe C K T,aside

from attending som e of their events and fundraisers. H e was not aninducted m em ber,nor did he

“consult”withtheirleadership.

The PSR also correctly points out that Jack sonhad regular interactionwith U C E 4599

during the course of the investigation,extraneous of any dealings that U C E 4599 had with Y ee.

Jack sonm et with U C E 4599 to discuss a conspiracy to traffic cocaine across state lines. (PSR ,¶

22.)D uring the investigation,there were m ultiple conversations withU C E4599aboutthe details of

the drug operation of K eith Jack son,B randon Jack son and Sullivan involving the interstate

distributionof drugs. (Id.)Y ee had no k nowledge of,or involvem ent with,the drug traffick ing

operation.

Jack sonalso engaged ina separate arm s traffick ing conspiracy with U C E 4599,of which

Y ee had nok nowledge.(Id.)This conspiracy wenta greatdeal furtherthanthe conspiracy thatY ee

has plead to,with Jack sonm eeting m ultiple tim es with U C E 4599,and eventually selling U C E

4599varioustypesof firearm sand ballistic vests.(PSR ,¶ 22.)

Inadditiontothese conspiracies,Jack sonalsom etwithU C E4599and conspired toengage ina

m urder for hire schem e at U C E 4599’s request. U C E 4599 and Jack sonhad m ultiple conversations

regarding this m urderforhire plot.Sim ilartothe drug traffick ing conspiracy and the arm s traffick ing

discussed above,Y ee had nok nowledge orinvolvem entwiththe m urderforhire plot.

The PSR further enum erates the m ultiple steps that Jack sontook inthe drug traffick ing

conspiracy discussed above.5 These m eetings illustrate that Jack sonwas serious about carrying

5PSR ¶ 44expandsonJack son’srole inthe drug traffick ing conspiracy,and U C E2pressuringJack sontofurtherhisownagenda.PSR 44:“A tanotherm eeting betweenU C E-2,K eithJack son,and B randonJack sononD ecem ber13,2013,they discussed the cocaine deal,and U C E-2providedK eithJack sonwith$1,000asincentive forsetting upa m eeting withthe arm sdealer… A sa


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

- 28-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

throughthe drug traffick ing conspiracy,and using his continued contactwithU C E4599forillegal

ends. Y ee did not k now of these m eetings,or partak e inthem . For this reason,a downward

variance iswarranted.

Jack sonwas engaged inm any m ore illegal activities thanY ee. T hese activities included

plotting totak e the life of anotherhum anbeing.The im pactof the charges againstJack sondo not

com pare tothe charges againstY ee.Therefore,tosentence Y ee and Jack sontothe sam e am ountof

tim e violates 18 U .S.C . § 3553(a)(6). Jack son and Y ee have not been charged with “sim ilar

conduct.”They should nothave sim ilarsentences.

The allegations againstY ee revolve around the central claim thatY ee was accepting m oney

inexchange forpolitical favor.The charges againstJack sonare a greatdeal m ore varied and severe.

H owever,the PSR proposes that Y ee and Jack sonreceive equivalent sentences. To do so would

propound the “unwarranted sentence disparities”thatSection3553endeavors toavoid.T herefore,a

downward variance iswarranted based onthe disparity of the chargesagainstY ee and Jack son.

D . Section3553(a)(2):G eneral Purposesofthe C rim inal Justice System .

A ccording to Section3553(a)(2),it is appropriate to consider four general purposes of the

crim inal justice system insentencing: (1)just punishm ent,to reflect the seriousness (or lack of

seriousness of the offense);(2)general deterrence,to discourage others from com m itting the sam e

acts; (3) specific deterrence,to discourage the defendant from com m itting the sam e acts; and

(4)rehabilitation. (See generally, 18U .S.C .§ 3553(a)(2)(A )-(D ).)

H ere,the PSR ’s proffered G uideline calculationof 27would resultina patently unreasonable

recom m ended sentence whenconsidered inrelationto the purposes of sentencing,and a guideline

range of notm ore than51-63m onths,along withappropriate departures,is warranted.(See Adelson,

supra,at506(finding thatthe G uideline calculations led toa result“sopatently unreasonable”as to

require a non-G uideline sentence based onothersentencing factors).)

m eeting withthe arm sdealerk eptbeing postponed by Jack son,U C E-2told Jack sonand B randonJack sonthatthe cocaine deal would be delayed until the m eeting withthe arm sdealerm aterializ ed.”


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

- 29-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

1. JustPunishm ent

The C ourt m ust render a “just punishm ent”that prom otes respect for the law. 18 U .S.C .

§ 3553(a)(2).Y ee subm its thatthe PSR ’s proffered G uideline sentence of 27would resultinanunjust

sentence,given the PSR ’s proffered m iscalculations with respect to financial contributions and

firearm sdiscussed supra.Y ee doesnotdispute thatProbationm ustrecom m end a punishm entbased on

the offense towhichhe haspled guilty.The evidence of financial contributionsthoughdoesnotadd up

tothe figure proffered by the G overnm ent.The G overnm entm ustbe puttoitsburdenonthisissue,as

a m iscalculationcanhave a substantial im pactonthe guideline range,especially whenconsidered in

the context of other possible enhancem ents. (See, Hopper,supra,at 832-33 (finding clear and

convincing evidence standard applies when an enhancem ent would have an “extrem ely

disproportionate effect”onthe sentence).) Inaddition,Y ee subm its that there is no evidence of an

actual num ber of firearm s traffick ed or intended to be traffick ed,and thus,the additionof that

attendant enhancem ent would result in an unjust sentence. A sentence of 51-63 m onths,with

appropriate downward departures,is “sufficient,but not greater thannecessary”to com ply withthe

purposesof punishm ent.(See, Gupta, supra, at353.)

2. G eneral D eterrence

Y ee recogniz es that public trust inelected officials is of great im portance and that political

im propriety isa seriousissue.Inaccepting responsibility,Y ee hastak ena substantial stepinadm itting

hiswrongstothe public.H iscase and hisplea garnered significantpublic attentionthroughthe m edia.

The m essage sent by the G overnm ent inits prosecution,and by Y ee through his acceptance of

responsibility,isone of respectforthe law.

Y ee subm its that the bulk of the general deterrence im pact has already occurred throughthe

process of his public exposure and hum iliationby way of the indictm entand m edia coverage,as well

as his subsequentplea.A m odestsentence will achieve whatevergeneral deterrence value is lefttobe

accom plished.(See, Adelson,supra,at 514.)R ather thanim posing a significant prisonsentence,the

C ourtm ay considera reasonable financial burdentoachieve the goalsof sentencing.

3. Specific D eterrence

W ithrespecttothe k inds of sentences available,the sentencing range established for,and any


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

- 30-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

pertinent policy statem ent,it is im portant to consider the A m endm ents to the Sentencing G uidelines

which increase the availability of non-custodial sentences for certain non-violent offenders.6

M oreover,withrespecttorecidivism ,Y ee presents norisk .H e is67years old and will neveragainbe

em ployed inpublic office.7 The Sentencing C om m issionhas also found that first offenders lik e Y ee

are rarely reconvicted of a crim e.Infact,only 3.5% of firstoffenderswithz erocrim inal history points

are ever reconvicted.8 Y ee has never before beeninvolved inthe crim inal justice system .This is his

very firstencounter,and givenhis age and lack of future em ploym entinpublic office,there is norisk

of future crim inal conduct.

4. R ehabilitation

Y ee subm itsthathe doesnotrequire any specific m edical,vocational,ortherapeutic treatm ent.

V . A D D IT IO N A L SEN T EN C IN G C O N SID ER A T IO N S

A . D ownward D epartures

The G overnm ent’s proffered G uideline sentence is notappropriate inthis case.H owever,if a

G uideline sentence isapplied,the following downward departuresare warranted.

6 See U .S. Sentencing C om m ission,A m endm ents to the Sentencing G uidelines (M ay 3,2010)(Theam endm ents,whichtook effectN ovem ber1,2010,increase the availability of non-custodial sentencesfor certain non-violent offenders,based on “recognition of increased interest in alternatives toincarcerationby all three branches of governm ent and renewed public debate about the siz e of thefederal prisonpopulationand the need forgreateravailability of alternativestoincarcerationforcertainnon-violent first offenders.”) see also 28 U .S.C . § 944(j) (The G uidelines “reflect the generalappropriateness of im posing a sentence otherthanim prisonm entincases inwhichthe defendantis afirst [tim e] offender who has not been convicted of a crim e of violence or otherwise seriousoffense… ”)7 O ne of the priorities of the U .S. Sentencing C om m issionfor the upcom ing am endm ent cycle ispriority num ber (6):U ndertak ing a com prehensive,m ulti-year study of recidivism ,including (A )exam ination of circum stances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism ; (B ) possibledevelopm ent of recom m endations for using inform ationobtained from suchstudy to reduce costs ofincarcerationand overcapacity of prisons;and (C )considerationof any am endm ents tothe G uidelinesM anual that m ay be appropriate in light of the inform ation obtained from such study.(http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/am endm ent-process/federal-register-notices/20150622_FR _Proposed_Priorities.pdf.)For exam ple,the Sentencing C om m issionindicatesthatdefendants “overthe age of forty ...exhibitm ark edly lowerrates of recidivism incom parisontoyounger defendants.” (See, U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal HistoryComputation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines at 12,28(M ay 2004).) Y ee is 67years old,andonly 6.2% of firsttim e offendersoverthe age 50recidivate. Id.at28.8 (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism and the First Offender atExhibit6(M ay 2004).) O nly 11.7%of all firstoffenders everfind them selves back inthe crim inal justice system (defined as reconviction,re-arrest,orrevocation).(First Offender atExhibit6.)


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

- 31-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

1. C ivic,C haritable,and Public Service

Y ee’s exem plary charitable and public service work s,docum ented supra,warranta downward

departure.(See U .S.S.G .§ 5H 1.11.)

Evenif incarcerated,Y ee intendstohelpothers. H e wantstoresum e actively helping othersin

the com m unity as soonas possible.H e would lik e towrite curriculum tohelpat-risk students succeed

inschool,aswell ashelpfightglobal healthdisparity issues.

2. A ge

M r.Y ee will be 67by the tim e he issentenced,and althoughage isnotordinarily relevant,itis

pertinentasitrelatestothe reduced lik elihood of recidivism .

3. C aretak ing

A ccording toU .S.S.G .§ 5H 1.6,(note 1B ):

(B ) D epartures B ased onL oss of C aretak ing orFinancial Support.–A departure under this policy statem ent based onthe loss of caretak ingorfinancial supportof the defendant's fam ily requires,inadditiontothecourt's consideration of the non-exhaustive list of circum stances insubdivision(A ),the presence of the following circum stances:

(i) The defendant's service of a sentence within theapplicable guideline range will cause a substantial,direct,andspecific lossof essential caretak ing,oressential financial support,tothe defendant'sfam ily.

(ii) The loss of caretak ing or financial support substantiallyexceeds the harm ordinarily incident to incarceration for asim ilarly situated defendant. For exam ple,the fact that thedefendant's fam ily m ightincursom e degree of financial hardshipor suffer to som e extent from the absence of a parent throughincarcerationis not initself sufficient as a basis for departurebecause suchhardshiporsuffering is of a sortordinarily incidenttoincarceration.

(iii) The loss of caretak ing or financial support is one forwhichnoeffective rem edial oram eliorative program s reasonablyare available,m ak ing the defendant's caretak ing or financialsupportirreplaceable tothe defendant'sfam ily.

(iv) The departure effectively will address the loss ofcaretak ing orfinancial support.

Inaccordance withthe above,Y ee’s financial and caretak ing responsibilities certainly warrant

a downward departure.The PSR ack nowledgesthatY ee’swife has“… several m edical conditionsand


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

- 32-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

requiresthe defendant'sassistance fordaily task s.”(PSR ,¶ 141.) H erphysician,D r.L ee,haswrittena

lettertothe C ourtwhichdetails M rs.Y ee’s illnesses. (L assartD ec.,Exh.34,p.90.) M rs.Y ee was

diagnosed withadvanced stage N on-H odgk in’s lym phom a in2012,and as a result of chem otherapy

losta greatdeal of weight.(PSR ,¶ 141.)She rem ainsata highrisk of m alnutritionand falling.(Id.)

A sa resultof the chem otherapy forlym phom a,M rs.Y ee developed neuropathy,whichcreates

painornum bness inherlim bs.(Id.)The neuropathy inherlefthand is severe,and has resulted inher

injuring herself several tim es. (Id.)She additionally has problem s walk ing due to being unable to

com pletely feel her feet,and m ust use a cane or wheelchair. (Id.)M rs. Y ee now also suffers from

depression,insom nia and chronic anxiety.(Id.)

A dditionally,M rs.Y ee hasdeveloped Sjogren’sSyndrom e,and hasscarring onherlungs.This

hasresulted inherhaving a chronic coughand affected hervisionsoseverely thatshe nolongerisable

todrive.(Id.)

M rs.Y ee iscom pletely reliantuponY ee forherday today care and routines.M rs.Y ee hasnot

work ed outside the hom e for 30years,and the Y ees’ financial situationrem oves athom e care as an

option.Y ee’s incarcerationwill have a directand substantial im pactonM rs.Y ee’s healthdue toher

continued reliance uponhim for daily task s.A s D r. L ee has stated,M rs.Y ee’s “prognosis is fair as

long asshe cancontinue onhercurrentregim enswithsupportfrom fam ily asneeded.”(Id.)

The PSR notesthat“The defendant’swife’ssevere m edical conditions,and need forM r.Y ee’s

continued care,would norm ally be considered a m itigating factor.H owever,the defendantcom m itted

the instantoffense afterM rs.Y ee firstbecam e seriously ill in2012,and did notconsiderherhealthas

a deterrent factor from com m itting his crim es.”(See PSR ,Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 3.)

R egardless of Y ee’s adm itted m istak es,M rs.Y ee’s continued care is a reality thatwill notdisappear

due not to being considered by M r. Y ee as a deterrent factor. The Y ee’s four children are all

professionals withm any otherobligations,and are unable toprovide M rs.Y ee withthe level of care

that she requires ona daily basis.The Y ee’s financial situationthus does not allow for the hiring of

professional care forM rs.Y ee,whichwould surely be required should Y ee be unable tocare forheron

a daily basis. M rs. Y ee,by her ownright,has contributed substantially to her com m unity (L assart

D ec.,Exh.34,p.174)and the daily care from herhusband is absolutely critical toherhealthand life


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

- 33-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

expectancy.Thus,M rs.Y ee’s healthconditionshould continue tobe considered as a m itigating factor

by thisC ourt.

4. A berrantBehavior

A sdescribed supra, Y ee’sbehaviorinthiscase representa m ark ed deviationfrom anotherwise

exem plary,law abiding life,and,therefore,warranta downward departure.

V I. C O N C L U SIO N

L eland Y ee is67yearsold and hasled anexem plary life withanexcellentem ploym enthistory,

including countless instances of generously contributing to his com m unity. Infact,Y ee has always

extended him self tothose inneed.H e has spenthis entire life helping others.Indeed,incarcerationat

his age and with his wife’s grave physical conditiondoes not m ak e sense and a sentence of hom e

confinem entwould be equally efficientand lesscostly thanincarceration.

Y ee did notcom m itthe charged offense outof greed.H e did notlive a lavishlifestyle ordesire

expensive things. Y ee did not directly benefit financially for providing his assistance to further

crim inal activity.U nfortunately,Y ee did notadhere tohis lifetim e principles of honesty and integrity.

H e recogniz es that his actions were wrong and he is rem orseful and deeply regrets his conduct.H is

widely publiciz ed crim inal activity hasserved ashisownprivate punishm ent.H e em barrassed him self,

hisfam ily,and com m unity by thisshock ing digressionfrom hishonorable careerinpublic service.

A lthough there is no excuse for having violated the law,the C ourt should consider a

defendant’s m otivationwhenviewing the circum stances of the offense. Y ee was well respected for

m any yearsdue tohisstrictadherence to“dothe rightthing”nom atterthe costtohim politically orto

hisfuture em ploym entinpolitics.Y ee isdeeply asham ed of hisdeparture from thispersonal policy.A s

he noted inhis statem ent,he allowed his desire toraise cam paignfunds inordertobe com petitive in

the race forSecretary of State tocom prom ise hisjudgm ent.H e continuestoagoniz e abouthisdecision

toengage inthese illegal acts.H owever,as ack nowledged inthe PSR ,som e of the transactions were

expanded by Jack sonalone and Y ee wasnotaware of all negotiationsorprom isesJack sonm ade onhis

behalf. Jack son did not work for Y ee,so Y ee was never aware when Jack son received actual

contributions or whether the m oney even went to his cam paign fund. R egardless of these

considerations,Y ee adm itsthathe should nothave becom e involved inthisconductora discussionof


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

- 34-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

sale of firearm s. Y ee also ack nowledges that his actions are very serious and warrant punishm ent.

H owever,the guidelinesare drivenby the unfairam ountof “loss”inthiscase aswell asthe am ountof

guns Y ee was purported tohave agreed toobtain.These enhanced calculations donotreflectthe true

nature of thisoffense.

W hendeterm ining anappropriate sentence,the C ourt m ust find a solutionthat is “sufficient,

butnotgreaterthannecessary.” Particularly inlightof recentlegislationaim ed atreducing the bloated

prison system which is at 38% overcapacity and addressing B O P budgetary problem s and

overcrowding,itdoes notm ak e sense toincarcerate a defendantforany term whois already 67years

old and whose wife issuffering from a life threatening illness.Y ee learned from hisillegal conductand

is rem orseful.H e has provenhis ability and propensity tohelpothers and benefitthe com m unity ina

tangible m anner.

The C ourt m ust consider a sentence that m ak es sense and is tem pered and balanced which

considers all of the objectives of sentencing. Y ee is anextraordinary,generous,and k ind m anwho

respectfully requeststhatthe C ourtview hislife initsentirety,notsim ply the tim e fram e during which

he com m itted the instantoffense,and toweighthe negative and positive equally.

For the foregoing reasons,Y ee respectfully requests a below-G uideline sentence.Y ee agrees

withthe PSR thathe should notreceive a sentence greaterthanthose agreed toby the co-conspirators.

If a G uideline sentence is recom m ended,Y ee subm its,however,that it should not exceed a total

offense level of 24.Y ee respectfully requeststhatthe C ourtconsiderhislong history of public service

and personal sacrifices,and the service he has provided to others. H e accepts responsibility for his

offense conductand isdeeply sorry forthe harm and painhisactionshave caused.


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

- 35-


C R 14-00196-C R B -2

D ated:February 17,2016M U R PH Y ,PEA R SO N ,B R A D L EY & FEEN EY

B y /s/JA M ES A .L A SSA R TJam esA .L assartN icholasC .L arsonA ttorneysforD efendantL EL A N D Y EE

21039159.doc


usa v. yee: defense sentencing memorandum

Documents