Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 1 of 7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Action No. 01-cr-149-WDM UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, vs. NADIA C. PASILLAS, Defendant. _______________________________________________________ ________ REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT EXCERPT OF CHANGE-OF-PLEA AND SENTENCING _______________________________________________________ ________ Proceedings before the HONORABLE WALKER D. MILLER, Judge, United States District Court for the District of Colorado, commencing at 11:03 a.m., on the 17th day of October, 2007, in Courtroom A902, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, Denver, Colorado. APPEARANCES DAVID GAOUETTE, Assistant United States Attorney, 1225 17th Street, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202, for plaintiff. JOHN MOSBY, 621 17th Street, Suite 925, Denver, CO 80293, for defendant.
Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM
Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 2 of 7
{
a very difficult position.
be difficult to reenter the United States, although your circumstances are certainly unique because of your family. The parties wish to go forward without a formal presentence-investigation report. And what I have before me is the report prepared for the defendant in the New Mexico proceeding in 2001-2002, as well as a pretrial services report and a memorandum from the probation office computing the Guideline ranges and providing other general information. I do find that this is sufficient to
allow me to meaningfully exercise my sentencing authority because of that background information from the prior investigation and I will therefore permit
Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM
Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 3 of 7
immediate sentence pursuant to Rule 32(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Guideline conclusions were summarized by myself and with a criminal-history category of II would place her in the imprisonment range of 41 to 51 months. The -- counsel, you didn't make any reference to this so-called MINT program dealing with mothers and pregnancies. MR. MOSBY: Honor. Yeah, that was a mistake, Your
I should have because my client, I sat down, we And she has specifically And I talked to
went over that this morning.
asked me to, if it's available.
Miss Pence about that at length this morning, about the availability of that program in the Fort Worth, Texas area. I think it may be available. But, you know, we
kept hitting that brick wall of whether or not it's available to non-U.S. citizens, and we think it is. And we should also let the Court know, in sentencing, that in her sentence from New Mexico, she was sentenced to a camp. And even though she was not a
citizen, she never took flight, and she did her entire sentence. And we'd ask if that's possible, that she be
sentenced to the camp, also. THE COURT: All right. The -- considering the
Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM
Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 4 of 7
nature and circumstances of the offense, the reentry by this defendant is understandable given the concerns for her child and her family connection. That, however,
does not excuse the unlawful nature of the reentry, particularly given her involvement in extensive drug importing scheme previously. The defendant, also, one
must take into account, her personal history and characteristics. It does balance or pull different
directions with her family connection, essentially growing up in the United States as opposed to the criminal activity which was significant and not just simply a small amount of drugs were involved. With regard to this particular crime, which is the one I must decide, the prior conviction does move her from criminal-history category I to criminal-history category II and the nature of the crime itself is viewed as serious; as we all know, it's become a matter of general public concern. I should
fashion a sentence which is significant to promote respect for the law and provide adequate deterrence and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. that. Certainly a custodial sentence would do
I should take into account the educational,
medical care, and other training and her pregnancy in
Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM
Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 5 of 7
determining what sort of correctional treatment can be provided. All of those factors, added to also her
familiarity with Texas and the family relationships certainly leads one to seek a place of custody that will allow the pregnancy to proceed through birth, provide her with access to an RDAP program, and locate her in a position of accessibility for her family. I certainly need to concern myself with unwarranted sentence disparities, and this defendant is one of many who seem to commit serious drug crimes, in particular are deported, and reenter and are faced with sentences of this nature; and the Guideline range sentence provides me with one that does hopefully avoid any sentence disparity. The Guidelines themselves are not binding but do provide me with exactly the -- that, guidelines to a reasonable sentence. They are the product of extensive
study and experience and my sense is that I should use them as a point of reference or hand hold certainly to avoid disparate sentences. It's very much a difficult case because of her history. I do think it's appropriate to take into
account her efforts to cooperate with the government. Presumably this would have led to something in the
Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM
Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 6 of 7
nature of a motion to depart if we were proceeding under the drug charges. And I do take that into
consideration in fashioning my sentence. I start with the low end of the Guideline as a measure that would enable me to sentence her justly and reasonably, but will give her some benefit of her cooperation and of her particular situation concerning her family. Including her children and parents and
sentence her to 36 months in prison as a just and reasonable sentence under the circumstances. Any questions about my ruling? From the government. MR. GAOUETTE: No, Your Honor. There will be a
period of supervised release as well. THE COURT: Yes.
Any questions? MR. MOSBY: No. We think the Court's ruling is I think the Court also
imminently reasonable.
mentioned the RDAP program? THE COURT: of sentencing. Yes. I'll include that in the form
As we go through.
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, it is my judgment that the defendant be sentenced to 36 months of custody and I do strongly recommend that she be
Case 1:01-cr-00149-WDM
Document 553-2
Filed 10/30/2007
Page 7 of 7
placed in the so-called MINT program and in the RDAP program and located in Texas. Upon release, she's
placed on supervised release for a term of three years, shall report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours of release. While on supervised release, she
shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime and shall not possess a firearm and shall comply with the standard conditions adopted by this court. I waive
the mandatory drug testing because it is likely that the defendant will be deported. If she is not
deported, she shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample. I do note that if she is deported, she shall not reenter the United States illegally. If she
reenters legally, she is to report to the nearest probation office within 72 hours of return. I do order
that she pay the special assessment of $100 which is due immediately. The fine, that she does not have the
ability to pay a fine and waive a fine in this case. (Proceedings were had which were not requested transcribed.)
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms