United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 1 of 57 Pg ID 15789 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds -vs- No. 10-CR-20403 D-1 KWAME M. KILPATRICK, Sentencing Date: October 10, 2013 Defendant. / SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES AS TO DEFENDANT KWAME M. KILPATRICK The United States submits the following memorandum regarding the sentencing of defendant Kwame M. Kilpatrick on October 10, 2013. Respectfully submitted, BARBARA L. McQUADE United States Attorney s/MARK CHUTKOW s/R. MICHAEL BULLOTTA Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney s/JENNIFER L. BLACKWELL s/ERIC DOEH Assistant United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 2 of 57 Pg ID 15790 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......................................................................................... iii INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................ 3 A. The Nature and Circumstances of Kilpatrick’s Crimes (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)) ................................................................................................. 3 1. Overview of the Racketeering Enterprise ............................................... 3 2. Fraud ...................................................................................................... 7 3. Bribes ................................................................................................... 11 4. Extortion .............................................................................................. 13 B. Kilpatrick’s History and Characteristics (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)) ................. 24 1. Misappropriating City Resources ......................................................... 24 2. Perjury and Cover Up of Text Messages ............................................... 28 3. Refusal to Pay Restitution .................................................................... 31 4. Lack of Remorse ................................................................................... 32 5. Positive Actions as Mayor .................................................................... 33 C. Seriousness of Kilpatrick’s Crimes, Just Punishment, and Respect for the Law (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)) ................................................................ 35 D. Deterring the Criminal Conduct of Others (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)) ....... 39 E. Protecting the Public from Further Crimes by Kilpatrick............................. 41 i 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 3 of 57 Pg ID 15791 F. Sentences Contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines ............................. 42 1. Specific Offense Characteristics .......................................................... 43 2. Role in Offense .................................................................................... 45 G. Avoiding Sentencing Disparities Among Similarly Situated Defendants ..... 46 CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 51 ii 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 4 of 57 Pg ID 15792 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Brown v. Mayor of Detroit, 478 Mich. 589, 734 N.W.2d 514 (2007) ..................... 28 Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) .............................................................. 47 In re Cook, 551 F.3d 542 (6th Cir. 2009) ............................................................... 32 United States v. Anthony, 280 F.3d 694 (6th Cir. 2002) ........................................ 45 United States v. Benson, 591 F.3d 491 (6th Cir. 2010) .......................................... 46 United States v. Bistline, 665 F.3d 758 (6th Cir. 2012) .......................................... 34 United States v. Blackwell, 459 F.3d 739 (6th Cir. 2006) ...................................... 44 United States v. Bolar, No. 10-30879, 483 Fed. Appx. 876, 2012 WL 1994728 (5th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................................... 49 United States v. Campbell, 279 F.3d 392 (6th Cir. 2002) ...................................... 44 United States v. Ciavarella, 716 F.3d 705 (3d Cir. 2013) ....................................... 48 United States v. DeRiggi, 72 F.3d 7(2d Cir. 1995) ................................................. 45 United States v. Ganim, No. 3-01-CR-263, 2006 WL 1210984 (D. Conn., May 5, 2006) ..................................................................................... 39 United States v. Hamilton, 263 F.3d 645 (6th Cir. 2001) ....................................... 44 United States v. Langford, 647 F.3d 1309 (11th Cir. 2011) ................................... 49 United States v. Manjate, 327 F. App'x 562 (6th Cir. 2009) .................................. 32 United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2006) ...................................... 39 iii 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 5 of 57 Pg ID 15793 United States v. Peppel, 707 F.3d 627 (6th Cir. 2013) .......................... 34, 39, 44, 47 United States v. Reagan, et al., 725 F.3d 471 (5th Cir. 2013) ............................... 49 United States v. Serafini, 233 F.3d 758 (3d Cir. 2000) ........................................... 34 United States v. Spano, 411 F.Supp.2d 923 (N.D. Ill. 2006)................................... 40 United States v. Triana, 468 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2006) ........................................... 44 United States v. Vrdolayk, 593 F.3d 676 (7th Cir. 2010) ....................................... 34 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) ........................................................................................ passim Rules U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) ...................................................................................... 44 U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 ................................................................................................... 44 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(a)(2) ............................................................................................ 43 U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2) ........................................................................................... 44 U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1 .................................................................................................... 43 U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a) ............................................................................................... 45 iv 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 6 of 57 Pg ID 15794 INTRODUCTION In January 2002, Kwame Kilpatrick became the sixty-eighth mayor of Detroit. He ran for office on the slogan “Our Future: Right Here, Right Now!” promising that he would devote his energy and talent to turn around a struggling city. Instead, he made its citizens endure a tumultuous period of corruption, scandal, mismanagement and greed, followed by years of civil and criminal litigation in the courts. He created a “pay-to-play” system for the provision of city goods and services which compromised vast swaths of city government, including the water and sewer system, the convention center, the pension system, casino developments and recreation centers. City government essentially became up for grabs for the right price. This was not “politics as usual” as Kilpatrick’s defense team would later argue during his trial on federal racketeering charges. Kilpatrick extorted city vendors to help his coconspirators and to line his own pockets. He rigged bids and took bribes. He defrauded non-profits to enrich himself, his wife and his associates. And worst of all, he did it all in a city where poverty, crime and lack of basic services made it one of the most vulnerable metropolitan areas in the 1 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 7 of 57 Pg ID 15795 nation. The scale of his corruption was astonishing. The impact on the region was devastating. As a career public servant and a licensed attorney, Kilpatrick was especially qualified to understand the gravity of his crimes. He understood the power and trust given to elected officials and that corruption benefits the few at the expense of the many. His crimes were not the result of a momentary lapse in judgment. He systematically exploited his office to enrich himself, his friends and his family. Kilpatrick’s crimes put him at the very top of the most significant municipal corruption cases in this country in decades. Since 2004, when the federal sentencing guidelines were amended to reflect the grave consequences of corruption on communities, the sentences imposed in major state and local corruption cases have ranged from 14 to 28 years in prison. When taking into account these cases, as well as the sentencing guidelines and the statutory factors set forth at Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), a sentence of at least 28 years in prison is justified. 2 2:10-cr-20403-NGE-MKM Doc # 471 Filed 10/03/13 Pg 8 of 57 Pg ID 15796 ARGUMENT A. The Nature and Circumstances of Kilpatrick’s Crimes (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)) 1. Overview of the Racketeering Enterprise The evidence produced during the six-month trial established beyond a reasonable doubt that Kilpatrick ran a criminal enterprise using the office of the mayor of Detroit. He schemed with codefendant Bobby Ferguson and others to cash in on his position as mayor.