Opinion
S2 03 CR 206(LBS).
June 27, 2005
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In a summary order filed March 23, 2005, the Court of Appeals with the Government's consent, remanded the cases of Emmanuel Bonsu and Joseph Adomako-Mensah to this Court for a determination whether resentencing is appropriate in conformity with United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). In response, the Court has reviewed the prior proceedings in this case and the submissions of counsel.
Joseph Adomako-Mensah
Counsel for Joseph Adomako-Mensah has submitted an Affirmation urging a reduction in sentence which stresses the economic and other hardships to this defendant's family by virtue of his incarceration and the defendant's regret for the numerous misguided efforts in which he engaged in connection with his sentencing.
The Government, by letter dated May 20, 2005, sets forth the details of defendant's criminal conduct and the number of false and deceptive practices in which he engaged.
At the time of sentencing this Court stated, "I do really think that I'm being generous to the defendant. If one wanted to trace all of the lies and all of the misstatements in his prior applications to the Court and the manner in which he has dealt with this case, I think my not imposing an enhancement for obstruction of justice is an act of extreme leniency."
Having already been the beneficiary of "extreme leniency," the Court sees no reason why a resentencing of Adamako-Mensah would lead to any lower sentence than that initially imposed. No reason advanced by Adamako-Mensah or his counsel is persuasive.
The Court determines that resentencing pursuant to Crosby is not warranted.
Emmanuel Bonsu
The history of Bonsu closely parallels that of Adamako-Mensah and includes failure to disclose his true identify and false and uncooperative behavior in his dealings with the Probation Officer.
By letter dated May 5, 2005, counsel for Bonsu notes that he pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement under which he expected to receive a sentence of 24 to 30 months. However, by virtue of this Court's denial of the three level decrease for acceptance of responsibility and two level increase for obstruction of justice, the guideline range became 41 to 51 months. The Court imposed the minimum sentence of 41 months.
Counsel argues that resentencing is appropriate and that if she had known that the guidelines were not mandatory, she would have made arguments that she did not previously advance.
However, this Court is entirely satisfied that even under a non-mandatory sentence procedure such arguments would have been futile.
Bonsu's history of deception to the Probation Officer and withholding of his true identity is something which a sentencing court would have to deal with under any sentencing regimen.
In imposing the minimum guideline sentence, the Court believed it was treating Bonsu leniently and now believes that were it to impose a non-guideline sentence pursuant to Crosby, the sentence would be no lower than 41 months.
* * *
As prescribed by Crosby, this Court has reviewed the guideline provisions applicable to these defendants and considered as well the dictates of 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The Court is entirely satisfied that a sentence pursuant to the guidelines, though not mandatory, is entirely appropriate as to these defendants. The Court of Appeals has already determined that the guidelines were correctly calculated. Nothing in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 or otherwise at all suggests that a non-guideline sentence would be appropriate here or that any guideline departures would be appropriate.
Conclusion
On remand, the Court concludes that there is no occasion for a resentencing as to either of these defendants and their applications are denied.
SO ORDERED.