Seattle1
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2013
- Messages
- 39,160
- Reaction score
- 408,030
Supervised release conditions are attached (quoted below). Other than contacting the PO within 72 hours of release, no schedule here outlining contact, drug tests, etc.
Her attorney made the appearance in Civil Court so technically, SP committed no state or federal crime (a violation of probation) by not appearing at her divorce status hearing which was rescheduled by the Court.
While SP's treatment in the criminal justice system is indeed questionable, I find her early release very perplexing.
SP was ultimately charged with Count 3, Mail Fraud, and Count 35, Making False Statements. (Counts 1-2 and 4-34, Mail Fraud were dismissed).
Although SP caused innocent individuals to become targets of a criminal investigation and left the public in fear of her alleged Hispanic capturers who purportedly remained at large, she was not charged with a federal hate crime.
Similarly, SP was not fined or charged under Title 18 of the United States Code for knowingly and willfully making false statements or representations of a material fact to apply for Social Security Disability benefits under this title, after receiving benefits in excess of $127K for falsely claiming to have been kidnapped.
SP was also not charged for committing fraud against CalVCB after claiming benefits in excess of $30K.
On April 12, 2022, SP entered into a plea agreement that cited her Criminal History Category as I, and Offense Level calculation at 11 or Zone B (i.e., 8-14 months imprisonment pursuant to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines). However, the plea agreement further provided:
VI. SENTENCING DETERMINATION
A. Statutory Authority.
The defendant understands that the Court must consult the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and
must take them into account when determining a final sentence. The defendant understands that the Court will determine a non-binding and advisory guideline sentencing range for this case pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines and must take them into account when determining a final sentence. The defendant further understands that the Court will consider whether there is a basis for departure from the guideline sentencing range (either above or below the guideline sentencing range) because there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the Guidelines. The defendant further understands that the Court, after consultation and consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines, must impose a sentence that is reasonable in light of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
B. Violations of Supervised Release.
The defendant understands that if she violates a condition of supervised release at any time
during the term of supervised release, the Court may revoke the term of supervised release and require the defendant to serve up to three additional years imprisonment.
On Sept 19, 2022, sentencing proceedings were held before Senior Judge William B. Shubb, and for Counts 3 and 35, SP was sentenced to serve 18 months imprisonment, both counts served concurrently for a total of 18 months, with a recommendation of a facility in CA, and 36 months supervised release. SP was given a surrender date of 11/08/22 by 2:00 p.m. (See Docket #54).
Under federal statute, an 18-month sentence translates to 15.3 months imprisonment or 85% of the sentence (i.e., estimated release date Feb 29, 2024).
IMO, the Court took both the 8-14 months plea agreement Federal Guideline Sentence calculation and the Government's recommendation for an 8-month sentence into account (See Fed Docket #43) but returned with a sentence of 18 months because the proposed sentences did not fully and fairly account for all relevant factors. I'm disappointed that the probation department interfered with the Court's sentence whereby SP will ultimately be fully released four months before the date imposed by the Court.
Revised, full release date Oct 29, 2023. MSM Report 8/26/23
SP's Presentence Investigation Report (PSR)--amended multiple times, was sealed from public view. IMO, it seems to me that SP learned the system before entering and/or was subjected to the US Probation Office interviews, or began working with her BOP case manager immediately upon entry! I'm reminded that SP also successfully tricked her therapist into believing that she was a kidnap victim. (See Federal Docket entries 38-42).
And... once again, SP is going to be taking federal assistance dollars in the re-entry program for employment counseling, job placement, financial management assistance, and other programs and services that help inmates gradually rebuild their ties to the community.
What are the odds SP won't violate the terms of 36 months of Supervised Release?
Per the details outlined above, IMO, I doubt a woman who was not young, photogenic, and white would have fared as SP did here. For example, 31-year-old, unattractive, addict, Kayla Montgomery was facing 5 years imprisonment for obtaining $1500 in food/Snap benefits when Harmony was no longer alive. And the real or imaginary, Hispanic woman would still be sitting in jail, without bond release, awaiting trial after being assigned four different public defenders in two years. JMO
BOP: First Step Act Overview
www.bop.gov
BOP: Residential Reentry Management Centers
RRM Sacramento
BOP Halfway Houses
Learn about the BOP Halfway Houses and Reentry Program. Our interview with Jon Gustin, retired Bureau of Prisons Administrator.prisonprofessors.com
View attachment 443962
View attachment 443963
View attachment 443964
LIVE 1.7.1.1 NEXTGEN CM/ECF - U.S. District Court for Eastern California
ecf.caed.uscourts.gov
