Since he has already served 38 months, The Court should sentence Mr. Whitfield to time served. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, John Whitfield respectfully submits that a sentence of not greater than 38 months is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the statutory directives set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). To the extent that this Court believes any remaining sentencing objectives need be met, they can be met by some combination of probation, home confinement, community service, and supervised release.

IV. CONCLUSION The governing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors merit an alternative sentence equivalent to a Guideline Manual level of 8 to 10 (downward departures from a base 12 level-offense). Incarceration at the base offense level is not “necessary to comply with purposes set forth in [§ 3553(a)(2)].”

Case 3:01-cr-00263-JBA Document 272 Filed 06/24/2005 Page 14 of 16 15 IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, in conformity with the procedures outlined in Crosby, this Court should indicate, for the record, that after consideration of the defendant’s Guidelines range and all of the factors listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the defendant should not be re-sentenced. Respectfully submitted, KEVIN J. O’CONNOR UNITED STATES ATTORNEY SANDRA S. GLOVER ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY Federal Bar No.

See generally 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2)(B), (C) and (D); see also Crosby, 397 F.3d at 118 (expressing no views on what current circumstances should be considered upon resentencing). Accordingly, due to the now required consideration of previously excluded factors highly relevant to achieving a sentence that is “sufficient” but “not greater than necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553, Ganim respectfully submits that a re-sentencing is warranted. In the alternative, Ganim respectfully suggests that additional briefing by the parties on this issue would be appropriate.

Third, the Court is to impose a sentence that will deter similar criminal conduct and to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)-(C). A Guideline prison sentence will satisfy the importance sentencing goal of deterrence, both specific and general, and promote respect for the law.

Finally, nothing in the Court’s ruling today prevents the imposition of a lesser sentence than Defendants originally received should they be convicted at trial. And should a conviction follow the trial, at a sentencing hearing, the Defendants would, of course, be able to articulate why a lesser -19- sentence is warranted by pointing to the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) and to any other cognizable reason. And the Government remains free to dismiss the charges should it determine, in the exercise of its prosecutorial discretion, that this prosecution is not warranted or that its resources would be better assigned to other areas.

Thus, the United States recommends and respectfully requests that Cathay receive a 39% downward departure from the bottom of the Guidelines fine range4 and a resulting fine of $60 million. DATED: July 10, 2008 Respectfully submitted, BY: /s/ Brent Snyder Mark Rosman, Assistant Chief Brent Snyder, Trial Attorney Mark Grundvig, Trial Attorney Kathryn Hellings, Trial Attorney Elizabeth Aloi, Trial Attorney Carsten Reichel, Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Suite 11300 Washington, D.C. 20530 Tel.: (202) 616-3186 Fax: (202) 514-6525 Case 1:08-cr-00184-JDB Document 5 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 6 of 7 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 10th day of July 2008, the foregoing United States’ Motion for Downward Departure Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §8C4.1(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6) was filed electronically and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, counsel for defendant Cathay Pacific Airways Limited will be notified through the Electronic Case Filing System. DATED: July 10, 2008 at Washington, D.C. /s/ Brent Snyder Case 1:08-cr-00184-JDB Document 5 Filed 07/10/2008 Page 7 of 7

A substantial sentence that sufficiently reflects the seriousness of this harm is, therefore, clearly warranted. For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons set forth in our initial sentencing submission, the Government respectfully submits that the defendant’s egregious and repeated invasions of his victims’ privacy, when considered in conjunction with all of the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), supports the imposition of a Guidelines sentence in this case. Respectfully submitted, PREET BHARARA United States Attorney By: ________________________________ Daniel S. Noble Assistant United States Attorney (212) 637-2239 Enclosures cc: Justine Harris, Esq. (via electronic mail) Attorney for Marlen Rappa Case 1:14-cr-00544-VEC Document 43 Filed 04/06/15 Page 5 of 5Case 1:14-cr-0 40 -JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 14 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 15 of 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 16 of 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 17 of 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 18 of 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 19 of 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/26/15 Page 20 of 27 Case 1:14-cr-00404-JMF Document 32 Filed 06/

This case presents a classic outside-the-heartland situation. The sentencing guidelines fail to properly reflect 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) considerations, such that this Court may impose a sentence below the guidelines. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 127 S.Ct. 2456, 168 L.Ed.2d 203 (2007).

-10- I did for money and that I did everything I could for a community that deserved so much more.” See Letter of Dianne Wilkerson.12/ This Court is, of course, rightly concerned with fashioning a sentence that promotes deterrence, as indicated by 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2)(B). But the emphasis in the statute is on “afford[ing] adequate deterrence” and finding a sentence which is “sufficient but not greater than necessary . . . to comply with the purposes” set forth.