Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona KURT M. ALTMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney Arizona State Bar No. 015603 Two Renaissance Square 40 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1200 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4408 Telephone: (602) 514-7500 [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA United States of America CR-04-1058-006-PHX-FJM Plaintiff, v. Zeresh Thornburg, et. al., Defendant. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DOWNWARD DEPARTURE

The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, responds to defendant's Motion for Downward Departure and respectfully requests this Court deny the motion. This response and its request for denial of defendant's motion is supported by the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Respectfully submitted this 17th day of March, 2006. PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona

s/ Kurt M. Altman KURT M. ALTMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:04-cr-01058-FJM

Document 80

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 1 of 3

1 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 4 A downward departure is not warranted in this case. Defendant is asking for a downward

5 departure based primarily and defendant's age and immaturity. The government disagrees that 6 defendant should receive any further benefit based on her age. A plea agreement was offered 7 and accepted by defendant that if accepted by this court, dismisses three additional counts 8 against defendant. Two of those counts are 924(c) counts which would carry a mandatory seven 9 and twenty-five year consecutive sentence respectively. Additionally, the presentence report 10 paragraph 32 subtracts two levels from the offense conduct based on defendant being a minor 11 participant as described in United States Sentencing Guidelines §3B1.2(b). Technically the 12 government disagrees with this adjustment because being a get away driver in a bank robbery 13 is not a minor role in most views. However, the government has not and will not formally 14 object to the two level reduction because the resulting guideline range is adequate punishment 15 and a fair sentence for someone in defendant's position and with defendant's characteristics. 16 Furthermore, the government is not moving for a downward departure based on U.S.S.G

17 §5K1.1. As defendant points out, she can make no claim of substantial cooperation, therefore 18 the government will not move for a downward departure based on such, nor is a downward 19 departure warranted. 20 Based on the foregoing, the United States of America urges this Court to deny defendant's

21 Motion for Downward Departure. 22 23 24 25 s/ Kurt M. Altman 26 27 28
2

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of March, 2006 PAUL K. CHARLTON United States Attorney District of Arizona

KURT M. ALTMAN Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:04-cr-01058-FJM

Document 80

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 2 of 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
3
Richard D. Gierloff Attorney for Defendant I hereby certify that on March 17, 2006, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants:

[email protected]

Case 2:04-cr-01058-FJM

Document 80

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 3 of 3