Opinion
Criminal No. 15-241
04-06-2017
USA, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER COLAMARINO, Defendant.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
In this action, Defendant pleaded guilty to one Count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, which encompassed ninety-four separate incidents. On March 21, 2017, this Court imposed a split sentence: six months of incarceration, and six months of home detention, followed by a five-year term of supervised release. Before the Court is Defendant's Motion to Remain on Bond Pending Appeal.
To be entitled to the relief requested, Defendant must demonstrate, inter alia, that her appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in: (i) reversal, (ii) an order for a new trial, (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or (iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1).
After careful consideration, I find that the Defendant's appeal does not meet this standard. Defendant appeals the two-point enhancement for obstruction of justice applied at sentencing, and challenges her sentence as substantively unreasonable in the context of her family circumstances and the offense conduct. Even if the two point enhancement at issue had not applied, however, the same sentence would have been imposed. For all of the reasons stated on the record at the time of sentencing, the sentence imposed was tailored specifically to meet the requirements of punishment in this case while taking into account all of the relevant factors relating specifically to the Defendant. The sentence imposed fell within the Guideline range applicable whether or not the two-point enhancement applied; absent the enhancement, the same sentence would have been imposed. In terms of the substantive reasonableness of Defendant's sentence, the sentence was well within the Guidelines range; moreover, in consideration of Defendant's circumstances, the Court split the sentence between incarceration and home detention. Therefore, even if the Court of Appeals were to find the two point enhancement improper, Defendant is unlikely to obtain the type of relief set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3143(b)(1)(A). The sentence was eminently reasonable, in light of both Defendant's family situation and offense conduct. For these reasons, as to both grounds for her appeal, Defendant has not raised grounds sufficient to overcome the statutory presumption against release. Cf. Mackey v. Waiden Fairton FCI, 612 F. App'x 60, 61 (3d Cir. 2015).
AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2017, the Defendant's Motion for Bond Pending Appeal (ECF Docket No. 63) is DENIED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/_________
Donetta W. Ambrose
United States Senior District Judge