United States v. King

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________
)
UNITED STATES, )
)
v. ) Criminal Action No. 15-140-01 (RMC)
)
RASHIDA KING, )
)
Defendant. )
_________________________________ )
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Rashida King entered a plea of guilty on January 14, 2016 to a one-count
Information which charged her with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States with Respect to
Claims, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286. Ms. King faced a sentencing range under the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines of 10 to 16 months in custody and one to three years of supervised
release. This Court sentenced her to a term of probation for three years with a condition of home
detention from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and location monitoring. This Memorandum Opinion
explains the Court’s variance from the Sentencing Guidelines.
I. FACTS
A. Criminal Charge and Sentencing
Ms. King participated in a conspiracy involving more than 130 individuals that
filed hundreds of false tax returns based on false names, false addresses, false income figures,
and false entitlements to over $42 million in tax refunds. The identity theft and tax fraud scheme
involved several layers of coconspirators; Ms. King both typed some false tax returns and also
established numerous bank accounts into which she deposited tax refunds and withdrew money
for delivery to others in the upper layers of the conspiracy. Although the conspiracy continued
for five or more years, Ms. King’s participation was limited to the period between May 2010 and
1
February 2011. The parties agreed that Ms. King has a restitution obligation of $82,939.41 to the
Internal Revenue Service for false tax refunds attributable to her. The Government did not seek
forfeiture.
The base offense level for Ms. King’s crime was 6. Because the loss in this case
was at least $82,939.41, the base offense level was increased by 6 levels, to 12. See U.S.S.G.
§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(D). In addition, the offense involved ten or more victims, adding two more levels
to the base offense. See U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A)(i). Thus, the adjusted offense level was 14.
Because Ms. King accepted responsibility early and entered a pre-trial plea (she responded to a
target letter, with counsel, and negotiated a pre-indictment plea), the offense level was reduced
two levels, to level 12. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Ms. King’s total criminal history score was
zero, and thus her criminal history category was I. U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A.
Based on an offense level of 12 and a criminal history category of I, the
Guidelines provided for a sentence of custody of 10 to 16 months, plus one to three years of
supervised release. The Government sought a sentence of six months’ incarceration to be
followed by a term of supervised release that would include six months’ home detention. Ms.
King sought a downward departure of four levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6, which provides
for departure where there are extraordinary family circumstances, and a sentence of home
confinement1 without incarceration.
The Court appreciated the bases for each of these recommendations but adopted
neither. Instead, the Court sentenced Ms. King to a term of probation for three years with a
1
While Ms. King sought “home confinement,” she did not specify whether she sought it as a
condition of probation or a condition of supervised release, she did not specify the term sought,
and she did not specify whether she proposed to be released from home confinement for certain
hours of the day for work, medical appointments, grocery shopping, or other reasons.
2
condition of home detention from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. with location monitoring. The Court
also imposed a restitution obligation of $82,939.41, to be shared jointly and severally with
defendant Antonio Cooper, Criminal Case No. 15-152-01. Because Ms. King did not have the
ability to pay, the Court waived a fine and the cost of location monitoring. The Court also
imposed a $100 special assessment.
B. Personal Background of Defendant
Ms. King worked in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area, primarily in the
general health care field, for various periods between 2004 and January 2015, when she relocated
to Georgia. She has a high school diploma and some college. Her jobs have always been paid
on an hourly basis. In 2009, she lost her job because she had missed too many days due to a
difficult pregnancy. She found herself without work for two years. During that period, she
engaged in the criminal conduct at issue. Once she became employed again in 2011, she ceased
her criminal conduct. However, there have continued to be long periods of time since 2011
during which Ms. King once again found herself without work. There is no evidence that she
ever returned to unlawful activity.
Ms. King is the mother of three children. Her eldest daughter is 23 years old,
working on a master’s degree in Florida, and supporting herself as an executive chef. Ms.
King’s 14-year-old son lives with his father in the District of Columbia. Her youngest daughter
is seven years old and totally reliant on her mother. The father of the seven-year-old is married
to another woman, has a separate family, and has not been involved in raising or supporting the
seven-year-old.
At the times when Ms. King was unemployed and financially indigent, she and
her young daughter slept on friends’ couches, lived in shelters, or lived in a car. With Court
3
authorization, Ms. King moved to Georgia in January 2015 to assist her elderly, ill father. Ms.
King had no job in the D.C. area at that time. Her father’s health further deteriorated, and he
now lives in a nursing home. After months of living in a shelter with her daughter in Georgia,
Ms. King found a job and an apartment. At this time, she has established normalcy in her child’s
life. Ms. King’s daughter is an honor roll student with perfect attendance, and she is a top
reader.
There is no other family member who could care for Ms. King’s young daughter
if Ms. King were incarcerated. Thus, if Ms. King were incarcerated, the seven-year-old would
become a ward in the Georgia foster care program. Due to these facts, Ms. King sought a
downward departure due to extraordinary family circumstances under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 and a
sentence of home confinement without incarceration.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
At sentencing, a district court must first ascertain and consider the appropriate
sentencing range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines. However, the Guidelines are no
longer mandatory and provide recommendations based on national experience only. United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). To devise a sentence that is “sufficient but not greater
than necessary,” a court also must fully consider the sentencing factors identified in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a). Those relevant here include:
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
4
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the
defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for—
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the
applicable category of defendant as set forth in the
guidelines . . . .
This Court provided such analysis at the Sentencing Hearing, and issues this Sentencing
Memorandum to explicate its reasoning.
III. ANALYSIS
Ms. King moved for downward departure due to extraordinary family
circumstances under U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6. She sought a term of home confinement with no time in
custody.
Chapter 5, Part H of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines addresses specific offender
characteristics. Section 5H1.6 advises that “family ties and responsibilities are not ordinarily
relevant in determining whether a departure may be warranted.” Id. However, the Commentary
to § 5H1.6 suggests that a departure may be warranted where:
(i) The defendant’s service of a sentence within the applicable
guideline range will cause a substantial, direct, and specific loss of
essential caretaking, or essential financial support, to the
defendant’s family.
(ii) The loss of caretaking or financial support substantially exceeds
the harm ordinarily incident to incarceration for a similarly situated
defendant.
5
U.S.S.G. § 5H1.6 Commentary, Application Note 1(B)(i) & (ii). See United States v. Dyce, 91
F.3d 1462, 1466 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (a court may depart based on family ties and responsibilities
only if the case “significantly differs” from the norm).
The Government did not contest the fact that Ms. King is the sole caretaker of her
seven-year-old daughter, but it argued that a downward departure under § 5H1.6 was not
warranted because the loss of caretaking and financial support that would be caused by Ms.
King’s incarceration would not exceed the harm ordinarily incident to incarceration. The
Government insisted that the seriousness of the offense and the need for deterrence strongly
supported its recommendation to impose a sentence of six months’ incarceration, followed by
supervised release that would include six months’ home detention. The Government asserted
that it already had taken Ms. King’s personal situation into account when it made its
recommendation.
The Court denied Ms. King’s request for a downward departure under U.S.S.G.
§ 5H1.6 because she did not demonstrate that she and her family would suffer extraordinary
harm due to incarceration. Even so, considering the record as a whole, the Court determined that
a variance was appropriate. Tr. 7/29/2016 at 19 (Court: “I really have to vary”). See also United
States v. Fumo, 655 F.3d 288, 317 (3d Cir. 2011) (a “departure” diverges from the originally
calculated sentencing range for reasons contained in the Guidelines themselves and a “variance”
diverges from the Guidelines range based on an exercise of the court’s discretion under 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a)).
When determining a sentence, a court must consider the nature and circumstances
of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant to impose a sentence that is
“sufficient but not greater than necessary” to fulfill the goals of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
6
The Court agreed with the Government that Ms. King’s conduct was serious and that a message
of deterrence was needed. Ms. King completed tax returns that sought tax refunds, knowing full
well that the information she provided on the tax returns was false and the claims for tax refunds
were fraudulent. She also established multiple bank accounts for the purpose of hiding the
deposit of multiple refunds. This kind of insidious crime is difficult to identify, investigate, and
prove and, in the meantime, the United States population that pays its taxes bears the burden.
Although Ms. King’s crime was serious, in the five-year lifetime of the
conspiracy she was a relatively short-term participant. This does not fully mitigate the
seriousness of her crime, but its relative duration and Ms. King’s voluntary departure from the
conspiracy must be taken into account. Further, at sentencing the Court explained that “Ms.
King has shown herself to be back on the right road, she has behaved herself [for the years since
she regained a job in 2011], she has [gotten] a job, she has worked hard, she is taking care of her
daughter, et cetera, and there is no one else that [can] take care of her daughter.” Tr. 7/29/2016
at 19. The Court asked whether Ms. King’s “crime warrants blowing her fragile family apart
again,” and answered its own question stating, “I don’t think it does.” Id. at 19-20. Also,
considering the need to promote respect for the law, the Court found that Ms. King’s conduct
since her early admission of guilt to the Government demonstrated that she had regained her
respect for the law and that the likelihood that Ms. King will engage in further criminal conduct
is very small.
Under the unique circumstances presented here, the Court sentenced Ms. King to
three years’ probation with a condition of home detention from 7:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. and
7
location monitoring because this sentence was sufficient but not greater than necessary to fulfill
the goals of sentencing.2
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court imposed a sentence that varied from the
Guidelines.
Date: August 23, 2016 /s/
ROSEMARY M. COLLYER
United States District Judge
2
The Probation Officer recommended a term less than the 36-months for the home confinement
condition of probation. Tr. 7/29/2016 at 21. The Court declined to accept this recommendation
because of the strength of the Government’s arguments on seriousness and deterrence as well as
the underlying facts. The Court warned Ms. King:
[T]his is not going to be easy but it is easier than going to jail. That
is the best I can tell you. You get to keep your job. You get to stay
home with your daughter, but you are going to have to be [home] by
7:00 at night because they are going to be able to tell if you don’t.
If you break it and you don’t get home by 7:00 every night then you
have violated the terms of your probation and you can be jailed. So
it is in your control, but it is not going to be easy. I think three years
is going to be very hard . . .
Id. at 22. Provided that Ms. King fully complies with the terms of her sentence, counsel may
move to remove the home confinement condition after 18 months.
8