Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

Case 3:10-cr-00007-CSH Document 25 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


PLAINTIFF ) CRIMINAL NO.: 3:10cr00007 (CSH)
)
V. )
)
) FEBRUARY 18, 2011
ELLIOT WILSON )
DEFENDANT )
)

DEFENDANT, ELLIOT WILSON’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

The Defendant, ELLIOT WILSON, pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure, submits this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing. Sentencing is scheduled for

Wednesday, February 23, 2011.

On January 6, 2010, Elliot Wilson waived Indictment and entered a guilty plea to a one-

count Information charging him with Making False Declaration Before a Federal Grand Jury, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.

Elliot Wilson was interviewed by the United States Probation Department who issued a

report dated February 7, 2010 (PSR). Said PSR is accurate and thorough but for two spelling

changes. At paragraph 23 of the PSR, Jill Nedowstek should be changed to Jill Nedorostek;

and at Paragraph 28 of the PSR, Valerie Stringowski should be changed to Valerie Stengowski.

Elliot Wilson is grateful for the time and effort of United States Probation Officer Bouffard.
Case 3:10-cr-00007-CSH Document 25 Filed 02/18/11 Page 2 of 6

ARGUMENT

A.) SENTENCING UNDER BOOKER

In U.S. v. Booker, 125 S.C. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court severed and excised the

mandatory provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, “making the Guidelines effectively advisory.”

Id. at 757. Thus, instead of being bound by the Sentencing Guidelines, the Sentencing Reform

Act, as revised by Booker,

requires a sentencing court to consider Guidelines ranges, see 18 U.S.C.


§ 3553(a)(4) (Supp.2004), but it permits the court to tailor the sentence in
light of other statutory concerns as well, see § 3553(a).

Booker, 125 S. Ct. at 757. Under Booker, sentencing courts must treat the guidelines as just

one of a number of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The primary directive in Section 3553(a) is for sentencing courts to “impose a sentence

sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph

2.” Section 3553(a)(2) states that such purposes are:

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the
law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational


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

In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, § 3553(a) further directs sentencing

courts to consider the following factors:


Case 3:10-cr-00007-CSH Document 25 Filed 02/18/11 Page 3 of 6

1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant;
2) the kinds of sentences available;

3) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing ranges established for


the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable
category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines issued by the
Sentencing Commission and in effect on the date the defendant is
sentenced, or (in the case of a violation of probation or supervised
release) the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the
Sentencing Commission;

4) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing


Commission that is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced;

5) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among


defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of
similar conduct;

6) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense

Here, Elliot Wilson requests that the Court impose a sentence of probation, less than

the 10 to 16 months established by the Sentencing Guidelines and/or for the following

reasons:

1.) Elliot Wilson after obtaining Counsel, met with the Government and admitted to
his offense early on;

2.) Elliot Wilson has lived a productive law abiding life, until said offense, for over
65 years;

3.) Elliot Wilson, with Counsel, met with the Government on several occasions and
provided the Government with information and evidence without reservation;

4.) Elliot Wilson has no prior criminal history;

5.) Elliot Wilson, as evidenced by his letters of recommendation, has served the
Case 3:10-cr-00007-CSH Document 25 Filed 02/18/11 Page 4 of 6

public well and has treated people with kindness and dignity;

6.) Elliot Wilson has suffered financial loss from being suspended from his
employment which has severly impacted his wife’s life as well;

7.) Elliot Wilson is remorseful and has tremendous regret for his actions which
have caused embarrassment and shame for his family and aged father;

8.) Elliot Wilson adopts the Conclusion from Paragraph 58 of the PSR, that “the
defendant is an unlikely candidate for recidivism and will likely not appear
before this or any other Court in the future.

The Court is respectfully requested to look at the letters submitted on behalf of

Defendant, Elliot Wilson. Two letters, in particular, stand out. The first from Frank and Linda

Giordano, testifies to Elliot Wilson’s characteristics as a person and neighbor. The second

letter from Francis Skoronski describes Elliot Wilson as “someone I know I could go to if I

needed him...Elliot Wilson is a good neighbor”.


Case 3:10-cr-00007-CSH Document 25 Filed 02/18/11 Page 5 of 6

CONCLUSION

Elliot Wilson has lived a good and decent life. He is a great husband and neighbor.

Elliot Wilsom comes before this Court and respectfully requests this Court sentence him to a

term of probation. Hopefully, justice and mercy recognizes the Defendant’s age, personal

characteristics and goodness when evaluating an appropriate sentence.

THE DEFENDANT
ELLIOT WILSON

BY: /s/
MICHAEL S. HILLIS
Dombroski, Knapsack & Hillis, LLC
129 Whitney Avenue
New Haven, CT 06511
(203) 624-9096
ct11867
Case 3:10-cr-00007-CSH Document 25 Filed 02/18/11 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that on February 18, 2011 a copy of the foregoing was filed
electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this
filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or
by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic
Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System.

/s/
MICHAEL S. HILLIS