Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 99

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. REYNARD LAZARO PRATHER, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CRIMINAL NO. 1:11-cr-541

Honorable Anthony J. Trenga Sentencing: June 1, 2012

POSITION OF THE UNITED STATES WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING The United States of America, through its attorneys, Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, and Michael E. Rich and Zachary Terwilliger, Assistant United States Attorneys, in accord with 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and the United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual (Guidelines), 6A1.2, files this Position of the United States With Respect to Sentencing of REYNARD LAZARO PRATHER (PRATHER). For the reasons set forth below, the

government respectfully recommends that the Court impose a sentence of 360 months. BACKGROUND 1. On or about May 17, 2010, PRATHER and John Doe #1 (Doe

#1") met in Prince Georges County, Maryland, and drove to a shopping center in Virginia, where they met John Doe #2 (Doe #2"). During the drive, Doe #1 enlisted PRATHER in the plan to After meeting Doe #2 at the shopping center, Doe #2

rob D.B.

drove PRATHER and Doe #1 to the vicinity of D.B.s residence,

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 100

located on Compton Road, Centreville, Virginia, and dropped off PRATHER and Doe #1. Somewhere between Prince Georges County,

Maryland, and Centreville, Virginia, Doe #1 gave PRATHER a duffel bag containing a loaded semiautomatic pistol. PRATHER knew that

Doe #1 also was armed with a semiautomatic pistol. 2. D.B. owned several check cashing stores in Northern

Virginia, and Doe #1 and Doe #2 had information that D.B. kept the proceeds of those businesses at his residence. Their plan

was to rob him of those proceeds, of which Doe #1 told PRATHER his share would be $50,000. 3. After being dropped off by Doe #2, PRATHER and Doe #1

walked to D.B.s residence where they saw D.B. depart, leaving one of the garage doors open. They entered the garage Doe #1 told

where they intended to wait for D.B. to return.

PRATHER that his role in the robbery was to restrain D.B.s sons upstairs in the residence and he, Doe #1, would take care of D.B. upon his return. 4. Before D.B. returned, however, PRATHER and Doe #1

were discovered in the garage by D.B.s son and Jose Cardona, one of D.B.s employees. The four paired off in a struggle: While so involved,

PRATHER and the son and Doe #1 and Cardona.

PRATHER heard a shot fired and saw Cardona lying dead on the driveway in front of the garage. fled. Within minutes, he and Doe #1

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 101

5.

An autopsy of Cardonas remains disclosed his death was

caused by a 9mm bullet that passed through his left hand and entered through his left eye into his brain. A magazine

containing seven live rounds of .45 caliber ammunition was found on the driveway near where Cardona was shot. SENTENCING LAW 6. Although the Supreme Court rendered the federal

Sentencing Guidelines advisory in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), a sentencing court is still required to consult [the] Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing. United States v. Clark, 434 F.3d 684, 685 (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Booker, 543 U.S. at 264). The Supreme Court has

directed that district courts begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). 7. As this Court is aware, a sentencing court should first

calculate the range prescribed by the Sentencing guidelines after making the appropriate findings of fact. Hughes, 401 F.3d 540, 546 (4th Cir. 2005). See United States v. However, the

sentencing court may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable. Nelson v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 890, 892 (2009). The [g]uidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark, but the sentencing court must also consider all of the 3553(a) factors in determining the appropriate sentence. Id.; see also Clark, 434 F.3d at 685. 3 Pursuant to 3553(a), the

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 102

district court should consider: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed; (3) the kinds of sentences available; (4) the Sentencing Guidelines; (5) policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution to victims of the offense. Ultimately, the sentence imposed must meet a standard of reasonableness. U.S. at 260-61. 8. Presentence Report. The government concurs with the See Booker, 543

Probation Officers Presentence Report and urges the Court to adopt its conclusions and recommendations, specifically its calculation of the Guideline Range of 360 - Life. As noted by

the Probation Officer, the government hereby moves the Court pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(b) to grant an additional 1-level reduction in the offense level. 9. Section 3553(a) Factors. After calculating the

appropriate guidelines range, the court must determine whether a sentence within that range . . . serves the factors set forth in 3553(a) and, if not, select a sentence [within statutory limits] that does serve those factors. United States v. Section 3553(a)

Moreland, 437 F.3d 424, 432 (4th Cir. 2006).

states that a sentencing court should consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and characteristics of the defendant. In addition, the Court should take into account the 4

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 5 of 8 PageID# 103

need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for law, [] to provide just punishment for the offense[, and] to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) & (B). The sentence also

should be fashioned in light of the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant and to provide the defendant with needed correctional treatment. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(C) & (D). Based on these factors, a term of imprisonment of 360

months is warranted and appropriate in this case. 10. The Victim. PRATHER committed an extremely serious

crime with severe consequences to the victim and his family. Jose Ramiro Rosales Cardona (Cardona)was born December 1970, in Guatemala. He was legally in this country, and had been employed

by the Brar family as a gardener and generally handyman for approximately two years prior to his death. 11. According to his brother, who lives in Massachusetts,

Cardona was born on December 5, 1970, one of ten children. Cardona was married and had one daughter. Cardona sent money

home every month to assist in caring for and supporting his parents. 12. According to the victims widow, she and Cardona Approximately

married in 1999, and in 2001, they had a daughter.

eight years prior to his death, Cardona left Guatemala and came to the United States in the hope of bettering his familys economic conditions. In the two years before his death Cardona 5

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 6 of 8 PageID# 104

routinely sent money to his wife in order to support the family. According to his widow, he also sent money home to assist with the care and support of his parents. She advised that the money

he sent assisted in providing for household expenses and care for their daughter. 13. Prior Criminal Record. Section 3553(a)(1) instructs a

sentencing court to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant. As noted by the Probation Officer, PRATHER was

convicted in Prince Georges County Circuit Court of carrying a handgun in 2009. 14. Respect for the Law. Finally, 3553(a)(2)(A) requires The United States

the sentence to promote respect for the law.

submits that the criminal conduct for which PRATHER is now being sentenced was he widely disseminated in the media, and it may be expected that the sentence this Court imposes will garner similar attention. Given the circumstances, a severe sentence will

promote such respect. 15. Conclusion. For the foregoing reasons and the

recommendations contained in the Presentence Report, the United States submits that a sentence of 360 months is sufficient but

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 105

not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of 3553(a)(2). Respectfully Submitted, Neil H. MacBride United States Attorney By: /s/ Michael E. Rich Zachary Terwilliger Assistant United States Attorneys United States Attorneys Office 2100 Jamieson Avenue Alexandria, VA 22314 Tel: (703) 299-3700 Fax: (703) 299-3980 Email: mike.rich@usdoj.gov

Case 1:11-cr-00541-AJT Document 31

Filed 05/14/12 Page 8 of 8 PageID# 106

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 14th day of May 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF, which will then send a notification of such filing (NEF) to the following: Alan H. Yamamoto, Esq. 643 S. Washington Street Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Tel: (703) 684-4700 Fax: (703) 684-6643 Cel: (703) 915-6544 yamamoto.law@verizon.net J. Thomas Spiggle, Esq. The Spiggle Law Firm 4830B South 31st Street Arlington, VA 22206 Tel: (202) 449-8527 Fax: (202) 540-8018 tspiggle@spigglelaw.com /s/ Michael E. Rich Assistant United States Attorney