Matthew Galluzzo has successfully applied for resentencing in other 18 USC 3582 cases, including modifications of sentences based upon US v. Davis and other changes in the law. He is an experienced federal criminal defense attorney and appellate lawyer and he offers a reasonable flat fee for an application to modify a federal sentence. Contact him today to discuss whether such a petition might benefit you or your loved one.

Mr. Galluzzo worked with a social worker to describe the client’s extremely difficult upbringing, which included parental abuse, poverty, homelessness, the foster care system, and drug abuse as a pre-teen. Mr. Galluzzo convinced the judge that pursuant to the recent Second Circuit decision in US v. Gibson, the client was not a Career Offender under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines despite his two prior convictions for NY Penal Law Section 220.39, resulting in his classification as a Criminal History Category IV instead of VI. He also convincingly described the overdose as a terrible accident and expressed his client’s remorse to the judge.

Ultimately, the Court granted a significant downward variance and gave him a sentence equal to roughly half that recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines, 120 months (10 years). The client was pleased with the result and felt that his voice had been heard. The case was US v. Huertero, 20-cr-580 (ER) before Judge Ramos.

If you or a loved one are facing federal narcotics charges resulting in an overdose, you should strongly consider contacting Matthew Galluzzo. A former federal prosecutor, he has experienced litigating against government prosecutors attempting to prove that defendants are responsible for fatal overdoses, and has effectively cross-examined scientific expert witnesses (doctors, toxicologists, pathologists, etc.) on the subject. He also knows how to effectively present requests for merciful treatment from sentencing judges. Give him a call to schedule a consultation.

Mr. Galluzzo practices primarily in the New York City area, as well as the federal courts of Connecticut, White Plains (NY), and New Jersey. However, he is also able to defend federal criminal cases in other jurisdictions under certain circumstances.

The entire incident was captured on surveillance tape from nearby buildings, and a witness identified our client as the shooter. Initially, the prosecutors sought a sentence near the maximum, between 8 and 10 years in prison. After a lengthy period of negotiation, the client’s attorney, Matthew Galluzzo, secured a plea agreement for the client with a sentencing range of between 33-41 months under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, following the client’s guilty plea, it was up to the federal judge to decide his ultimate sentence (the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory but not mandatory).

Prior to the sentencing hearing, Mr. Galluzzo submitted a lengthy memorandum detailing the client’s difficult upbring, his long period of productive employment, his supportive family network, his remorse for the crime, and the terrible conditions the client had endured at MDC Brooklyn during the pendency of the case. The federal judge (Judge Donnelly) was thus persuaded to give our client a downward variance far below the sentencing Guidelines, in sentencing him to 24 months in prison. Given the time that he has already spent in custody, that amounts to a sentence only slightly longer than time served. The client was thrilled was this result and with the prospect of returning home to his wife and son soon.

The case caption is United States v. R.P., 20-cr-511(AMD) in the Eastern District of New York.

If you or a loved one have been arrested and charged with a federal firearm crime like 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g), you should strongly consider contacting the Law Office of Matthew Galluzzo PLLC. Mr. Galluzzo has extensive experience defending these sorts of cases and is well known for his passionate advocacy. Mr. Galluzzo operates primarily in New York, Connecticut and New Jersey federal courts, but has also represented clients in other federal courts across the country.

After a federal conviction – by guilty plea or by jury verdict – the defendant is interviewed by a specialized officer from the U.S. Department of Probation. These officers typically have backgrounds in social work, and it is their responsibility to prepare a biography – or presentence report – for the court. The judge uses this presentence report at sentencing to understand the defendant’s life, background, and circumstances. (The Bureau of Prisons also uses this report in determining the defendant’s prison designation.) The preparation of a report can easily take two months or more, as the interview has to be scheduled, a draft report prepared, edits and objections made by both the defense and the prosecution, and a final draft with a sentencing recommendation submitted to the sentencing court.

Following the preparation of the presentence report, both the prosecution and defense prepare sentencing memoranda for the judge. Both sides make arguments about the proper application of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the sentencing factors pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Defense lawyers usually submit character letters from friends and family of the defendant, and sometimes the defendant also submits his/her own letter of remorse. Eventually, the sentencing court then holds a sentencing hearing at which both sides make oral arguments about the sentence and the court pronounces its decision. That sentencing hearing could be anywhere from 4 to 6 months after the conviction, though it could take even longer.

Every federal offense has a maximum and a minimum possible prison penalty, but it is the Sentencing Guidelines that help courts and defendants understand what Congress considers reasonable with more precision. The U.S. Sentencing Commission promulgates Sentencing Guidelines for each offense that includes factors for the courts to consider for each type of offense. For example, the Guidelines instruct the courts to consider a defendant’s role in the offense, how much money was stolen, how many drugs were trafficked, whether firearms were used or not in the offense, and whether any minors were injured.

It is thus extremely difficult to estimate Ms. Maxwell’s sentencing range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines without knowing all the details of the case and her background, but she is clearly facing a significant sentence. When a person is convicted of sex trafficking or enticement of multiple individuals, the Guidelines instruct that a person should receive consecutive sentences for each victim. Here, there are three victims in the case with corresponding convictions, so the penalties for each offense will “stack,” rather than be imposed concurrently. See U.S.S.G. 2G1.1(d)(1). Assuming Ms. Maxwell has no prior criminal record, she is probably looking at Guidelines ranges of around 97-121 months per victim, imposed consecutively. U.S.S.G. 2A3.1(a)(2). The court and parties will refer to the Sentencing Table to calculate the Guidelines range for each offense. See Table. There could be other aggravating factors or reasons for departures from these Guidelines calculations, however, so this is hardly a definitive calculation. Regardless, a very rough and preliminary estimate has her realistically facing thirty years under the Guidelines, or more. Ms. Maxwell is sixty years old.

Following the sentencing, Ms. Maxwell will be able to pursue a direct appeal to the federal appeals court (in this case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals). She can make legal arguments about alleged mistakes by the trial court in its rulings and/or arguments that the sentence was excessive. Prior to sentencing, Ms. Maxwell’s lawyers could also pursue various appellate arguments with the trial judge, Judge Nathan, though those probably have zero chance of success and would probably only serve to delay the sentencing. At first glance, there does not appear to be many arguments displaying any probability of success.

A defendant of course does not have to testify at trial, as they are entitled to a presumption of innocence and the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Moreover, a defendant’s decision not to testify cannot be held against them, either. That being said… sometimes defendants simply cannot expect to win without testifying. Elizabeth Holmes, for example, elected to testify that she is not criminally responsible for the alleged fraud at Theranos because she was controlled and abused by her boyfriend, who also managed that doomed corporation. Though she may ultimately be convicted, Ms. Holmes almost certainly made the jury’s decision more difficult by testifying. It was somewhat surprising to see Ms. Maxwell decline to testify here, because she frankly had no chance of winning with the strategy she employed. Nobody wins by sitting silent while four complainants point the finger at you with similar stories of abuse. It’s just basically impossible in this #MeToo era. That’s how Cosby and Weinstein lost at trial, and how Cuba Gooding Jr. and Andrew Cuomo will likely be convicted someday, too.

Despite the defiant post-verdict language from her lawyers, Ms. Maxwell likely knew that she was going to lose at trial. Perhaps she chose not to testify because she hopes to one day sell her story to newspapers. After all, you cannot sell what you give away for free on the witness stand. It’s also likely that she did not testify so that she could be cooperating witness someday. This is where the matter becomes truly interesting going forward.

Though most government cooperators choose to “snitch” before trial, it is possible to become a government cooperator after a guilty plea or conviction at trial. Virtually every government cooperator agrees to cooperate in exchange for a lesser criminal penalty, or for a shorter prison sentence. To be a cooperator, though, a witness cannot normally have testified under oath that they had nothing to do with the criminal conspiracy at issue. After all, a government cooperator is typically expected to testify under oath against his or her co-conspirators, and the government cannot elicit testimony from a witness that contradicts prior sworn testimony. Interestingly, Ms. Maxwell is actually indicted – and remains to be tried – for making allegedly false statements about this matter under oath in a parallel civil proceeding. Those statements were relatively short and brief, however, so the government may be willing to overlook some minor prior perjury on her part, in exchange for truly juicy information. If Ms. Maxwell had testified under oath, though, she would have spent the better part of three days denyingher involvement on the stand under withering cross-examination. After that, she would have been useless to the government as a witness against other unnamed co-conspirators because she could not possibly testify against her co-conspirators at a future prosecution of them. She would have destroyed her credibility as a government witness by that point.

So, it is quite possible that Ms. Maxwell and her lawyers deliberately withheld her testimony at trial so that she could still possibly cooperate with the government after a trial conviction. There have been more than a few rumors that President Trump, President Clinton, and Prince Andrew may have been involved in Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal abuse of minors. Given Mr. Epstein’s suspicious suicide at MCC New York, many people have been clamoring to know whether powerful people have been trying to hide the truth about Mr. Epstein’s systematic abuse of minors. Surely, the government would like to know whether Ms. Maxwell can confirm those rumors or provide any documentary proof as to their involvement. Perhaps Ms. Maxwell did not want to be perceived as a snitch or rat by participating with the government voluntarily pre-conviction. But now that she has been convicted at trial, she may acknowledge the futility of her continued resistance and offer the government her assistance in pursuing other prominent people. Maybe she is determined to be loyal to the memory of her dead friend, Jeffrey Epstein, but it would be a bit surprising if she would be willing to die in prison for him at this point.

The author of this article, Matthew Galluzzo, is a New York City criminal defense attorney specializing in federal criminal law. He is also a former Manhattan sex crimes prosecutor. His thoughts and opinions have been published many times in the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, among other publications. He is also a regular television commentator for Radio Canada.

Of course some of these players may in fact be innocent. But you can expect the government’s case to be strong here. The prosecutors will probably be able to demonstrate that the medical/dental/chiropractic services detailed in these invoices submitted for reimbursement were not in fact provided. And the government almost certainly has the bank records, phone calls, emails, and text messages showing the transactions between Terrence Williams and the other participating defendants. There are probably several cooperating witnesses as well (i.e. former players who did not participate in the scheme though they were approached about it). So, most of these defendants – if not all of them – are likely to plead guilty. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of federal defendants do.

Sentencing at the federal level is an inexact science. There is no statutory minimum here, and sentencing judges will look to the federal Sentencing Guidelines for guidance. However, the sentences suggested by those Guidelines are merely advisory, and not mandatory or binding. In fraud cases, the biggest variable in the Guidelines calculation is the amount of loss (assuming these defendants mostly do not have criminal records already). The defendants will likely be in Criminal History Category I, on the left hand column of the sentencing table provided for by the Sentencing Guidelines. Their base offense levels for Wire Fraud/Health Care fraud would be six. See U.S.S.G. 2B1.1. But then, you would have to add an additional offense level for the amount of fraud. There is some debate about whether this number should reflect “actual loss” or “intended loss,” which would make a difference here as the intended loss (i.e. the amount of false invoices submitted) was $3.9 million overall, but the actual loss was $2.5 million overall. Theoretically, each member of the group could be held responsible for the entire $3.9 million, as they were co-conspirators in a group effort to defraud the HRA. However, normally, in fraud cases, defendants are held accountable, so to speak, for the amount of money they themselves were actually involved in stealing (though that is not always the case, it is a fuzzy question of foreseeability). Terrence Williams, however, as the mastermind of the scheme, would probably have to add at least 16 levels to his sentencing offense level, in light of his being in charge of the entire scheme. Additionally, “masterminds” or managers of criminal enterprises can have their sentencing levels increased by another four levels. Pleading guilty tends to get a defendant an overall three-level reduction in sentencing offense level, so Terrence Williams could find himself at a suggested Guidelines sentencing range of 57-71 months (offense level 25), or roughly 5-6 years in federal prison.

Many of the other defendants are likely to have sentencing guidelines ranges of less than a year, meaning that they will have good chances of receiving sentences of probation. Judges, in addition to the Sentencing Guidelines, also must take into consideration a variety of sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These factors include things like the history and characteristics of a defendant, and his educational and medical and rehabilitative needs, among other things. Generally, a judge must impose a sentence that is just and “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to serve the purposes of criminal sentencing. All of these defendants, should they be convicted, will also be ordered to pay restitution and/or forfeit the profits that they received from the scheme, as well.

Defendants in these sorts of cases can sometimes argue that they were unaware of the illegality of their actions, but that argument is rarely viable or plausible. They might also allege that someone else submitted the false claims on their behalf without their permission. Most defendants, however, simply make the best cases that they can to get non-jail sentences with restitution (i.e. repayment) of the fraudulent profits. Some defendants also choose to act as cooperating witnesses against defendants or health care providers in return for leniency. These options must be discussed with an experienced attorney.

Matthew Galluzzo is a federal criminal defense attorney and former Manhattan prosecutor with experience defending people against federal charges of wire fraud and health care fraud. He is also a huge fan of the NBA and still plays in a weekly pickup game with middle-aged men.

If you or a loved one have been arrested or accused of the federal crime of wire fraud or health care fraud, give him a call to schedule an appointment.