Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL NO. 3:10CR16 (AVC)
v. :
:
LUIS MELENDEZ : December 8, 2010
a/k/a “Ramon Morales Cruz” :

GOVERNMENT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

The United States respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum with regard to the

defendant Luis Melendez, also known as “Ramon Morales Cruz” ( the “defendant”), who is

currently scheduled for sentencing on December 14, 2010 at 2:00 p.m.

I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

On July 9, 2009, the defendant was arrested by officers of the Freehold Township (New

Jersey) Police Department for fraudulent use of a credit card and related charges, and was placed into

pretrial detention. On July 16, 2009, United States Magistrate Judge Thomas P. Smith in the District

of Connecticut issued an arrest warrant and criminal complaint, charging the defendant with

violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1029 (Access Device Fraud) and Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1028A (Aggravated Identity Theft), based in part on the same or similar

conduct as underlies the New Jersey case. The defendant was subsequently removed to the District

of Connecticut, where he was arraigned on November 17, 2009 before United States Magistrate

Judge Donna F. Martinez, who ordered him detained pending grand jury action or a preliminary

hearing. Assistant Federal Public Defender Gary D. Weinberger was initially appointed to represent

the defendant, although he was replaced by Attorney Elliott R. Warren on December 9, 2009.

On January 12, 2010, a grand jury sitting in New Haven, Connecticut returned a six count
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 2 of 16

indictment charging the defendant with three counts of Access Device Fraud and three counts of

Aggravated Identity Theft. The defendant was arraigned on the indictment on January 20, 2010

before Magistrate Judge Smith. On June 2, 2010, before Senior United States District Judge Alfred

V. Covello in Hartford, Connecticut, the defendant pleaded guilty to Counts One (Access Device

Fraud) and Two (Aggravated Identity Theft). As part of the plea agreement, the defendant and

Government have stipulated that the defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range is 87 to 102 months’

imprisonment and a fine of $6,000 to $60,000. The Probation Office agrees with this calculation.1

The defendant has agreed to waive an appeal if his sentence does not exceed 87 months’

imprisonment and a 3 year term of supervised release. The defendant also agreed to make restitution

of $781,571.80 to Sam’s Club, Walmart, and GE Money Bank. Sentencing is scheduled for

December 14, 2010. By this sentencing memorandum, the Government respectfully submits that the

defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range was correctly calculated by the parties and the Probation

Office at 87to 102 months’ imprisonment, and a sentence within that range is fair, just and

reasonable.

II. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT

Between approximately April 2008 and July 2009, defendant executed a scheme to defraud

Sam’s Club and Walmart by taking over the credit accounts of its customers and then using that

credit to purchase goods. The scheme worked as follows: on each of several occasions, defendant

entered a different Sam’s Club location and presented a falsified identification document that

contained a picture of the defendant and the name and personal information of an actual Sam’s Club

1
The initial Presentence Report (PSR) indicates that the defendant is in Criminal History Category V. The
Probation Office has acknowledged that this is incorrect and has filed an addendum stating that the defendant is in
Criminal History Category VI, and that the correct Guidelines range is 87 to 102 months’ imprisonment.

2
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 3 of 16

credit card holder. Sam’s Club credit cards are managed by GE Money Bank, a financial services

company. In some cases, the defendant also provided the account number of that credit card holder,

and requested a replacement credit card. In other cases, he simply provided the false identification

and asked for a replacement credit card. A Sam’s Club employee then issued a new card to the

defendant, and took a photo of the defendant that was then placed on the back of the newly issued

card. The defendant then used the new fraudulently procured card to purchase items including gift

cards, electronics, and gasoline, until the account reached its credit limit. All account holders that

have been contacted have stated that they were unaware of the fraud.

The counts of the defendant’s conviction involve the Sam’s Club account of Gustavo Irizarry.

On June 22, 2007, Gustavo Irizarry opened a membership and credit account with Sam’s Club

located in Bayamon, Puerto Rico. Irizarry gave a Puerto Rico address and produced a Puerto Rico

Driver's License. On May 7, 2009, the defendant entered the Sam’s Club located at 69 Pavilions

Drive in Manchester, Connecticut. The defendant represented himself as Gustavo Irizarry and

requested a new Sam’s Club membership card. The defendant provided a new address of 49

Roosevelt Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts. A photograph of the defendant was taken by Sam’s

Club and printed on the new membership card in the name of Gustavo Irizarry. The defendant then

used the Sam’s Club account of Gustavo Irizarry on May 7, 2009 and May 8, 2009 in numerous

transactions and caused a loss to GE Money Bank of $9,771.60. These transactions occurred at the

Sam’s Club in Newington, Connecticut and the Walmart stores in Newington, Manchester, Groton,

East Windsor, Wallingford, and Hartford, all in Connecticut.

In all, the defendant took over 117 accounts of Sam’s Club and Walmart customers, and

caused a loss to Walmart, Sam’s Club, and GE Money Bank in the amount of $781,571.80. The

3
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 4 of 16

defendant victimized Sam’s Clubs and Walmart stores in Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts,

Rhode Island, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, and the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Following are a summary of the accounts the defendant took over

in Connecticut:

Name Date Taken Over Location Loss

Gustavo Irizzary 5/7/09 Manchester $9,771.60
Pedro Rivera 11/19/08 Henrietta, NY $3,693.96
11/26/08 Berlin
Carmelo Ramon Colon 9/1/08 Manchester $11,829.83
Juan Lopez 7/19/08 Manchester $3,998.57
Alfonso Velez 1/7/08 Manchester $10,211.30
Luis B. Diaz Rivera 8/2/08 Manchester $9,926
Eduardo Rodriguez Plaza 4/29/09 Manchester $3,172
Gregorio Matias Roman 1/2/08 Orange $3,900
Carlos Hernandez 8/7/08 Berlin $3,968
Ramon Ramirez Soto 6/21/09 Orange $9,717
Wilfredo Melendez 5/25/09 Manchester $9,853

Although these were the cases in which the defendant fraudulently obtained credit in

Connecticut, there were several others in which he obtained credit out of state and used it in

Connecticut.

The defendant was arrested on July 9, 2009, in Freehold Township, New Jersey, following

his fraudulent takeover of the Sam’s Club account of Luis Matos Sanchez. Earlier that day, the

defendant entered the Sam’s Club located at 290 Highway 18, East Brunswick, New Jersey. The

defendant produced a “Massachusetts Identification Card” in the name of Luis Matos Sanchez and

requested a new Sam’s Club membership card. The defendant provided a new address of 49

Roosevelt Street, New Bedford, Massachusetts. A photograph of the defendant was taken by Sam’s

Club and printed on the new membership card in the name of Luis Matos Sanchez.

4
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 5 of 16

Later, the defendant entered the Sam’s Club located at 320 West Main Street in Freehold

Township. The defendant attempted to purchase a Garmin GPS device with the Sam’s Club account

of Luis Matos Sanchez. Sam’s Club loss prevention notified the Freehold Township Police

Department (FTPD) and the defendant was then arrested. The defendant initially identified himself

to the FTPD officers as Luis Matos. However, the defendant also had in his possession identification

documents of Ramiro Morales Cruz. The defendant was later identified as Luis Melendez after a

fingerprint check.

At his arrest on July 9, 2009, the defendant had in his possession several items, including a

Sam’s Club credit card in the name of Luis Matos Sanchez with the defendant’s photo on the back,

a Massachusetts non-governmental identification card in the name of Luis Matos, and a Florida

identification card in the name of Ramiro Morales-Cruz. He also had a Puerto Rican phone book

page with names circled and other notations. New Jersey authorities initially charged the defendant

under the name of Ramiro Morales-Cruz.

Following his arrest on July 9, 2009, the defendant waived his Miranda rights and agreed to

be interviewed by agents of the United States Secret Service and Detectives of the FTPD. During

the interview, the defendant admitted his scheme to take over Sam’s Club accounts and use the

accounts to make purchases. The defendant stated that he identifies Sam’s Club accounts by placing

telephone calls to individuals in Puerto Rico and asking for their Sam’s Club account number and

personal information. The defendant stated that he then creates an identification document with the

account holder’s identifying information and enters Sam’s Club locations to obtain a new card on

their account. However, in this interview, the defendant significantly under-represented the amount

of loss he caused.

5
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 6 of 16

III. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

The defendant’s Guidelines range was stipulated to by the parties in the plea agreement. As

to Count One, the defendant’s applicable base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 is six (6). That

level is increased by fourteen (14) levels because the defendant caused loss to his victims in excess

of $400,000. U.S.S.G § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). The level is further increased by 2 because the offense

involved 10 or more victims. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(I). The defendant’s adjusted offense level

with a three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 is 19.

In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the defendant falls within Criminal History

Category VI. As noted in the second addendum to the PSR, the initial PSR incorrectly reported that

the defendant is in Category V, in that it omitted the defendant’s Rhode Island conviction for

fraudulently obtaining credit cards, entered on October, 28, 2002. The second addendum has

rectified this omission, and correctly calculates that the defendant is in Category VI.2

A total offense level 19, assuming a Criminal History Category VI, would result in a range

of 63 to 78 months of imprisonment and a fine range of $6,000 to $60,000. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(3).

The defendant is also subject to a supervised release term of 2 years to 3 years. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2.

Under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.6, the defendant is further subject to a mandatory two-year consecutive

sentence, as required by Title 18, United State Code, Section 1028A, upon his conviction for Count

Two. Thus the aggregate sentencing range under the Guidelines would be 87 to 102 months of

imprisonment.

2
The Government has also requested records from Puerto Rico regarding the defendant’s 2004 case in
Arecibo. Should records be received before sentencing, the Government will notify the Court and the defendant.

6
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 7 of 16

IV. A GUIDELINES SENTENCE IS REASONABLE UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

A. Sentencing Guidelines Following Booker

In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court held that the United

States Sentencing Guidelines, as written, violate the Sixth Amendment principles articulated in

Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004). As a remedy, the Court severed and excised the

statutory provision making the Guidelines mandatory, 18 U.S.C. §3553(b)(1), thus declaring the

Guidelines “effectively advisory.” Booker, 542 U.S. at 245. Booker modified the existing

sentencing scheme into a system in which the sentencing court, while required to consider the

Guidelines, may impose a sentence within the statutory maximum penalty for the offense of

conviction. Any sentence imposed by the district court is subject to appellate review for

“reasonableness.” Id. at 261-262.

In United States v. Rattoballi, 452 F.3d 127 (2d Cir. 2006), the Second Circuit further defined

the role of the United States Sentencing Guidelines in the imposition of a reasonable sentence under

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and the extent of the district court’s discretion in imposing a non-Guidelines

sentence. While the Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory, the district courts have a duty

to consider them along with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Id. at 132. The

Rattoballi court emphasized, however, that “Booker did not signal a return to wholly discretionary

sentencing.” Id. (citing U.S. v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 113 (2d Cir. 2005)). “While district courts

enjoy discretion following Booker, that discretion must be informed by the § 3553(a) factors; a

district court cannot import its own philosophy of sentencing if it is inconsistent with the § 3553(a)

factors.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). More succinctly, Rattoballi impressed that the circuit

court’s “review for reasonableness, though deferential, will not equate to a ‘rubber stamp.’” Id.

7
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 8 of 16

The Second Circuit has made it clear that the Sentencing Guidelines continue to play an

integral role in the district court’s calculation of a reasonable sentence. In fact, Rattoballi suggests

that the Sentencing Guidelines should weigh more heavily than other statutory factors in calculating

an appropriate sentence. “In calibrating our review for reasonableness, we will continue to seek

guidance from the considered judgment of the Sentencing Commission as expressed in the

Sentencing Guidelines and authorized by Congress.” Id. at 133. “The guidelines cannot be called

just ‘another factor’ in the statutory list because they are the only integration of the multiple factors

and, with important exceptions, their calculations were based upon the actual sentences of many

judges.” Id. (quoting United States v. Jiménez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 518 (1st Cir. 2006)). “It bears

noting that the Sentencing Commission is an expert agency whose statutory charge mirrors the §

3553(a) factors that the district courts are required to consider.” Rattoballi, 452 F. 3d at 133. Thus,

the range recommended by the Guidelines should be given significant deference by the sentencing

court as the Guidelines have already contemplated many of the statutory factors in § 3553(a). See

United States v. Capanelli, 479 F.3d 163, 165 (2d Cir. 2007) (“[T]he recommended guideline range

should serve as a benchmark or a point of reference or departure” for a sentencing court.)

A district court in determining a reasonable sentence must also consider the policy statements

issued by the Sentencing Commission. Rattoballi, 452 F. 3d at 134. “A non-Guidelines sentence

that a district court imposes in reliance on factors incompatible with the Commission’s policy

statements may be deemed substantively unreasonable in the absence of persuasive explanation as

to why the sentence comports with the §3553(a)(5).” Id.

The Supreme Court has also instructed that:

[A] district judge must give serious consideration to the extent of any departure

8
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 9 of 16

from the Guidelines and must explain his conclusion that an unusually lenient or
an unusually harsh sentence is appropriate in a particular case with sufficient
justifications. For even though the Guidelines are advisory rather than mandatory,
they are, as we pointed out in Rita [v. United States,127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007)], the
product of careful study based on extensive empirical evidence derived from the
review of thousands of individual sentencing decisions.

Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586, 594 (2007). The Rita Court noted that the Sentencing

Commission has attempted to “embody in the Guidelines the factors and considerations set forth in

§ 3553(a)” both “in principle and practice.” 127 S.Ct. at 2463. Notwithstanding the integral role of

the Sentencing Guidelines in formulating an appropriate sentence, neither “extraordinary

circumstances,” nor “rigid mathematical formula” are required to depart from the recommended

Guidelines range. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 595. Calculating the applicable Guidelines range is the

“starting point and the initial benchmark,” but the district court must then consider all the sentencing

factors in Section 3553(a) and make an “individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”

Id. at 596-97. If the district court imposes an outside the Guidelines range sentence, “it must

consider the extent of the deviation and ensure that justification is sufficiently compelling to support

the degree of the variance.” Id. at 597. The district court must then “adequately explain the chosen

sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.”

Id. The sentence imposed, whether a Guidelines or non-Guidelines sentence, is reviewed under an

abuse of discretion standard. Id.

B. Sentencing Factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)

Here, consideration of the Guidelines and the statutory factors demonstrate that a Guidelines

sentence is warranted.

9
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 10 of 16

1. Seriousness of the Offense, Respect for the Law, and Just Punishment

The defendant is a career con man who executed a fifteen month multi-state fraud scheme

in which he stole over $750,000 and in the process coopted the identities of over a hundred

unsuspecting Puerto Ricans. The scope of the defendant’s conduct is startling. For each of the 117

accounts he took over, he not only fraudulently obtained a replacement credit card, but he also then

used the stolen credit numerous times, each at different locations up and down the east coast and

Puerto Rico. For example, in the count to which the defendant pleaded guilty, the defendant entered

Walmart stores and Sam’s Clubs eight times - once to fraudulently take over the account, and seven

times to use the stolen credit. In all, the defendant physically entered stores with intent to defraud

Walmart and Sam’s Club well over five hundred times, which means that the defendant was, on

average, defrauding these companies at least once a day for over a year.

The defendant’s criminal conduct did not stop at the walls of Sam’s Clubs and Walmart

Stores. The defendant used the phone to con others out of their account numbers and other personal

identifying information. The defendant took their information and had fake identifications made

with his own picture. In sum, the defendant’s criminal conduct was not a series of individual crimes,

but a calculated criminal operation designed to con and steal.

Nor is the defendant’s crime victimless. Thankfully, Walmart, Sam’s Club, or GE Money

Bank have made whole the individuals whose credit accounts were taken over. However, the Court

ought to take note of the fact that, because of the defendant, on 117 occasions somebody in Puerto

Rico tried to use their Sam’s Club account and found out that they owed thousands of dollars for

charges they didn’t make. The Court should also consider that companies must pass on the cost of

fraud such as the defendant’s to consumers. Thus we all must literally pay the price because the

10
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 11 of 16

defendant has decided to place his interests above those of society and his fellow citizens.

2. Adequate Deterrence

A Guidelines range sentence will also provide adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct

of the defendant and others. Retail theft has become far too ubiquitous in our society, and courts

seem quick to assign a low priority to a scourge that costs companies billions of dollars every year.

While companies have continuously increased their defense against shoplifters, criminals such as

the defendant have found new ways to circumvent security and continue to victimize the retail

marketplace. Short or probationary sentences like those typically meted out by state courts are

insufficient to send a message of deterrence to those considering such criminal conduct. A Guideline

sentence here will help to send a message that theft in any form will not be tolerated.

The defendant is a perfect example of someone who has led a life of crime and who has

viewed frequent insignificant jail or probationary sentences as nothing more than speed bumps.

Although his criminal history begins in 1997, it appears that the defendants career as a con man and

thief began sometime prior to 2002, at the age of 25, when he was arrested for Third Degree Larceny

for cheating an Off Track Betting outlet in West Haven, Connecticut. Thereafter, the defendant was

arrested and convicted for such things as:

• Conning someone into signing their car over to the defendant;

• Stealing a $2000 money order;

• Stealing a purse from a sleeping train passenger and trying to use the stolen ATM card; and

• Conning a job seeker into handing over money and valuable personal property while falsely

“helping” the person get a non-existent factory job.

These convictions are in addition to other larceny related convictions and convictions for

11
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 12 of 16

failure to appear in court during the pendency of some of the larceny cases. Over and over again,

the defendant was given sentences of a year or less, often to run concurrent with one another. None

of these sentences reflected either the seriousness of the respective crimes or the defendant’s overall

criminal history. A Guideline sentence here will properly place the defendant’s most recent conduct

as part of an overall pattern of criminal behavior that has not been deterred by frequent short jail

terms.

3. Protection of the Public from Defendant

Protection of the public from further crimes of the defendant is also a factor that warrants a

lengthy jail term. As discussed above, the defendant has a significant criminal history, including

numerous convictions for larceny. Moreover, the defendant has demonstrated repeatedly that he has

no regard for the property of others. He has been left, by woefully inadequate prior sentences, to run

amok in our communities, causing harm to businesses and, by extension, consumers and employees.

The defendant has shown over and over that he is incapable of reform. Simply put, law abiding

members of society are better off when the defendant is in jail.

4. Educational and Vocational Training, and Medical Care and Treatment

There is little question that the defendant would benefit from psychiatric care and treatment

while incarcerated, in addition to educational and vocational training. The psychiatric examination

of the defendant in anticipation of sentencing confirms that the defendant suffers from major

depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder. PSR ¶ 56. Hospital records have confirmed

a prior suicide attempt. PSR ¶ 53. The defendant self reports a gambling problem, and the

Government has found records indicating that the defendant spent over $100,000 on gambling at

Foxwoods Casino between April 2009 and the his arrest. The psychiatrist’s report further indicates

12
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 13 of 16

that the defendant’s “pathologic gambling led to many negative legal consequences.” Id.

In fact, the Government submits that these “negative legal consequences,” i.e., that the

defendant cons and cheats his way to his gambling money, are the precise reason that the

psychiatrist’s report augurs for a significant jail sentence. According to the psychiatrist’s report, the

defendant has a history of seeking psychiatric treatment but not following through. ¶ 56. While we

would no doubt like to believe the defendant’s new commitment to seek mental health treatment to

control his criminal tendencies, such promises are merely aspirational for a career con man like the

defendant. In the mean time, society ought not to bear the risk of relapse while the defendant

receives such treatment.

V. RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

On December 3, 2010, the defendant filed a sentencing memorandum which urges the Court

to impose a non-guidelines sentence on the basis that (1) the 24 month consecutive sentence

mandated by the defendant’s conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A somehow double counts

enhancements already applied under his conviction for Access Device Fraud; (2) the Court should

consider that the defendant has not previously received meaningful help following his myriad of state

convictions; and (3) that the defendant’s criminal history category is inflated because of so-called

“petty” offenses. Notwithstanding these arguments, the Court should impose a Guidelines sentence

in this case.

First, the defendant does not elaborate on what aspect of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A double counts

any enhancement applied to his Access Device Fraud conviction in this case. In fact, there are only

two enhancements applied to the base offense level here – 14 levels because the defendant caused

loss to his victims in excess of $400,000, U.S.S.G § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), and 2 levels because the offense

13
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 14 of 16

involved 10 or more victims. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(I). Neither of those enhancements are even

related to Aggravated Identity Theft. The Government notes that there is one enhancement, in §

2B1.1(b)(10), which regards the use of fraudulently made identifications and which might otherwise

apply here. However, the Government acknowledges that this enhancement does not apply here

because of the defendant’s conviction for Aggravated Identity Theft. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.6, application

note 2. Indeed, the enhancement was neither part of the PSR nor the plea agreement, and was

certainly not included in the Government’s Guidelines calculation herein.

Moreover, to eliminate or ameliorate the additional 24 months’ imprisonment mandated

under 18 U.S.C. § 1028A would violate Congress’s intent to provide additional punishment when

defendants commit crimes using others’ identities. Congress specifically included Access Device

Fraud as an underlying offense that qualifies for this enhancement.

Next, the Government agrees with the defendant that the criminal justice system has been

heretofore woefully inadequate in its response to the defendant’s criminal activity. However, the

defendant also appears to take absolutely no responsibility for his own role in this downward spiral.

The psychiatrist’s report indicates that the defendant has consistently failed to follow through in

seeking psychiatric help. PSR ¶ 56. While the Government has supreme confidence in the good

intentions of the Probation Office, there seems to be no reason to believe that the defendant will

comply with mandates to seek help. Meanwhile, while the defendant is on release he will put all

citizens at risk. Rather, treatment options should be explored through the defendant’s incarceration

as he serves a Guidelines range sentence.

Finally, the Government takes issue with the defendant’s characterization of his prior

criminal history as a collection of “petty” crimes. Each of these crimes that the defendant committed

14
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 15 of 16

had victims, who likely would not view the defendant’s conduct as “petty.” Some involved criminal

schemes in which the defendant took in his victim through false representations. Moreover, the

defendant committed each crime on the heels of another. If anything, the defendant’s criminal

history is undercounted because on several occasions he was arrested for multiple different crimes

at once. Had the arresting police departments opted to arrest the defendant separately for each

occurrence, he would have an even higher criminal history category score.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Government respectfully requests that the defendant be sentenced

within the range dictated by the Guidelines, and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of

$781,571.80 to Walmart, Sam’s Club, and GE Money Bank, in accordance with the Plea Agreement.

Respectfully submitted,

DAVID B. FEIN
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/
DAVID E. NOVICK
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
450 Main Street, Room 328
Hartford, CT 06510
Federal Bar No. phv02874

15
 Case 3:10-cr-00016-AVC Document 46 Filed 12/08/10 Page 16 of 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on December 8, 2010, a copy of the foregoing Memorandum was
filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of
this filing will be sent by email to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system
or by mail on 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.

Sandra L. Hunt
United States Probation Officer
157 Church Street
New Haven, CT 06510
/s/

DAVID E. NOVICK
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

16