Free Sentencing Memorandum - 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

G EORGE F. K LINK
45 West Jefferson Luhrs Tower - Suite #810 Phoenix, AZ 85003-2328 (602) 253-3889 State Bar #004057 Attorney for Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ____________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Pete Jesse Cardenas, ) ) Defendant. ) ____________________________________) United States of America, No. CR04-00675-002-PHX-JAT SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Defendant, Pete Jesse Cardenas, by and through counsel undersigned, submits the attached Memorandum to aid the Court in sentencing. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of October, 2007.

/s/ George F. Klink Attorney for Defendant

Case 2:04-cr-00675-JAT

Document 311

Filed 10/12/2007

Page 1 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 Dated: October 12, 2007 AUTHORITY: 4. 3. 2. FACTS: sentence: 1.

MEMORANDUM Counsel urges this Court to consider the following factors in fashioning an appropriate

While there is a lack of recognition of this Defendant's minor role, it nevertheless should be considered by this Court. It would be astonishing to the undersigned to consider a sentence as harsh as the presentence writer calculates as a Guideline sentence under the Advisory Guidelines considering all factors, including the sentence imposed on the leader of this conspiracy. The Defendant is taking positive measures to change as shown by the Salvation Army Certificates which have been filed herein. The Defendant must still face a probation violation in the State criminal justice system in Texas as a consequence of the conduct for which he is being sentenced by this Court. In considering an appropriate sentence, this Court must consider the factors set forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, including: 1. 2. Nature and circumstances of the offense and history and characteristics of the defendant. The need for the sentence imposed to: a. b. c. d. etc. Further, § 3553, points out the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities. [§ 3553(a)(6)]. CONCLUSION: Keeping in mind the matters set forth above, the defense urges this Court to consider a concurrent sentence of no more than 60 months. Surely, such a sentence would be sufficiently harsh to satisfy the requirements of § 3553 of Title 18. This seems to be especially true since the Defendant will be facing yet more prison time for violation of probation in the State of Texas as a consequence of his conviction in this case. /s/ George F. Klink Attorney for Defendant Document 311 Filed 10/12/2007 -2Page 2 of 3 Reflect the seriousness of the offense; Afford adequate deterrence; Protect the public; Provide defendant with needed training;

Case 2:04-cr-00675-JAT

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 /s/ Polly Ann Markus

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 12, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk's Office using the ECF system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrants: Hon. James A. Teilborg United States District Court 401 West Washington Street Phoenix, AZ 85003 [email protected] Brian G. Larson, Esq. [email protected] Assistant U.S. Attorney

Case 2:04-cr-00675-JAT

Document 311

Filed 10/12/2007 -3-

Page 3 of 3