BIO ck
Wilmington Trust Center, I 10U North Marker Street. Suite |00|,Wi|mingcon. DE |980I
Tel: {302) 777-5860 I Fax: (302) 777-5863 I www.WolfB|ock.com
Kathleen M. Jennings
Direct Dial: (3.02)-tt?-6926
Direct Fax: (302] 77-80906. _
E-mail: l
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
U.S. District -C-ourt
844 N. King Street
Lockbox 31
Wilmi-ng·to‘11, DE 19801
Re: U-.S.A. v. Darnell Morris; Cr.A. Ne. 0.7-1`49·>4-('SLR]
Dear Judge Robinson:
I write in advaneeof Darnell Morris' July 24, 200-8 sentencing; hearing to provide the
Court with notice of .18 U.S.C. § 3.553(a) factors and other factors that fav-or mitig_at_ion, as
follows:
1. The United States Sentencing Guidelines- list one relevant ground for departure.
U.S.S.G. § 3131.2 provides that all offender may qualify for a 2 level downward adj ustmentfor
being a "minor p.artieipantT' in an offense. Commentary note 3.(_c.) to.etion 3.Bl .2 makes clear
that the 3Bl-.2 determination -is "heav-ily dependent on the facts ofthe particular case" and is
determined by weighing the totality of the circumstances. District courts have-broad discretion
in determining whether a defendant qualities for a downward adjustment. See, eg., LES v.
Gorrziaez, 238 F-ed.Appx. $29, 833 (Bd Cir. 20.07). Factors releyant to this determination include
"...the nature of the defe-ndant's relationship to other part`ieipa.nts, the importance of the
defendar1t's-aetions_to the success of the-venture, andthe defendants awareness of the nature and
scope of the crirni.na_l enterprise." United States v. Garcia, 920 F.2d 15.3,15.5. (2d C-ir. 1990); see
also Unite-a' States v. Price, 1-3 F.3_·d 711, 735e?3·6 (3d Cir. 1994). Defendant is scheduled to meet
with Assistant-United States Attorney Keith Rosen to- provide a "safety valve" proffer on July
23'Id- Therefore, Defendant respectfully requests the right to articulate the factual basis for this
adj ustmentfollowing the proffer. At this point in the proceedings, it is noteworthy that until
Darnell Morris appeared at TG1Fridays on the evening ofthe transaction, hi.s-. name had not even
beenmentioned as a participant. Indeed, as Detective David L. Boney's Crime report notes: 'VOn
the above date and time writer contacted -a-coniiidential informant 9CI) regarding an illegal drug
deal that was going to take place-in the parking lot ofthe TGI Fridays Restaurant"., which is on
the corner of Lockerman St, and US 13. The CI wasgoing to broker -a two kilo deal where a
black male subj-ect nicknamed Ant along: with his cousin were gong to purchase -the eocaine from
W[L:`l·25224.1/'MO`R33S>·S3l tor
Boston. MA I Cherry HIII. Nj I I?larr·isb_ur•g. PA-I New Yozrk. NY I Norristown.- PA. I Philadelphia, PA I Roseland. Nj I Wilmington, DE
\r‘\{oIfBIock Gqvernmenr Relanons - Harrisburg, PA IWoIfBlock. Publlc Strategies - Boston. MA, NewYork, NY and Washington. DC
weueueai un ¤ Pcrmsytyania tamed Liability someone
Case 1:07-cr-00149-SLR Document 118 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
.July`l4, 2008
Page 2
the cocaine packaged inside a box of Tide Laundry Detergent. Ant was later identified saw
Antoine `W·e_st, his cousin waslater identined as Andreus Scarborough, and "Q" was later
identified as'Nathan_ Weeks}-` Defendant accompanied another individual to the scene and was
ordered by that individual to btingmoneyto the vehicle in which the transaction was to occur.
Defendant appears only at the latter stage of the transaction. The video surveillance-of the
parking lot confirms- this sequence of events. While counsel. for Defendant does not have access
to theproffer of any codefendant, it appears that Defet1dant’s role is- markedly less- serious than
that of codefendants.
2. 18 U.S'.C. §‘ 3553·(_a) factors, as follows:
(a)_ The nature and circumstances ofthe offense and the `hi-story and
characteristics ofthe defendant. Defendant recognizes the serious nature or his involvement in
the offense. He was not the catalyst for the crime, but he knowingly participated in it.
Defendants history and character paint a picture of him that demons1rates· many fme qualities.
As the letters attached to the PSR attest, Mr. Morris is a devoted father to hi-s son and he is very
involved in his son's life- Mr. Morris provides. financially for hisfarnily. He has been
instrumental in the success of many members of his extended family. He has also been a
contributing member at his community, having coached youth league basketball for years.
Darnell Morris grew up in-a nei_ghborl:1ood where crime and failure were the norm. He graduated
from high school, and has been gainfully employed Prior to his arrest,.'Mr. Morris was working
to better his employment prospects by studying-_ to become licensed as a bail bondsnian. ne
plans to redirect his studies- even while in prison.
fb.) The need- for the sentence to refl-ectthc serious-ness of the offense, to
promote respect for the law and to- provide just punishment for the offense. Even if the Court
were to fashion a sentence below the Guideline range, Defendant will be serving significant time
in prison. I-Ie was arrested on Au-gust 8, 2007 and remained incarcerated until December 6,
2007. As the Court is aware, he wasreincarcerated following his guilty plea on April 10, 2007.
Dei`en·d‘ant hasgscrved approximately 7 months injailto date. He. realizes that he will be serving
additional time inj ail. Each defendant is unique. The need to promote respect for the law and to
provide just punishment speaks to continuity in sentencing. As long as -a. sentence is compatible
with the Guide-lines while taking into account the unique aspects of t_he case and the offender,
this goal can certainly be met. Significantly, there is no statutory minimum mandatory jail
sentence required in Defendants case.
(c) The need toprotect the public from ihrther crimes ofthe- defendant;
Darnell Morris has no prior criminal history points. I-Ie is 28 years of age. Despi- his use of
illegal substances, Mr. Morris was able- to remaindrug free while on bail pending trial. He has
great motivation to change his life, and he has demonstrated the `beginning of that
transfomiation. A drugrprogram would greatly benefit while incarcerated. All other indicia
of his life point to an optimistic outcome, as he has.-a-good employment history, a close knit,
supportive family and the motivation to change.
w1L;12s-224-. lr'MOR338¢83‘l 101
Case 1:07-cr-00149-SLR Document 118 Filed 07/14/2008 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
July 14, 20.08
Page 3.
(d) The need to provide defendant treatment. Mr. Morris could benent
from drug treatment,.and he would benefit hom a sentence designed- to provide treatment
without unduly prolonging his incare‘erati`on.
(e) The kinds of-Sentences available. Given Defendantls Guidelines range in
Zone D, he must serve whatever Sentence is imposed in prison. However, the drug treatment
program provides significant incentive for Defendant t.o succeed, as well as- provides amuch
needed treatment and rehabilitative‘enviro111‘nent.
-(i) The Guideline range. Therange far exceeds the necessary punishment in
Morris' case. Assuming he receives drugtreatment while. in pri-son. there is- no compelling
reason to warehouse him whereas there are compelling reasons to vary from the range. Mr.
Morris has no criminal history points. He was. not the eatalysttfor this offense, albeit he willingly
participated. He has an outstanding history of-devotion to family and to his son-. He has
volunteered atc. better hi-s community. He has been gainiiilly employed.
3. Other factors. Mr. Morris' fiance, Latasha Anderson, has written to the Court
detailing the financial strain Mr. Morris' incarceration has placed on her family. Ms.- Anderson
additionally suffers from signihcant illnes‘s’ which consist-of ventricular tachaeardia(.irregt11ar
heartbeat), rheumatoid arthriti-s'. and lupus (a muscular di-sorder). I will be- supplying the Co.urt
with- records that document her condition. U.S·.S.G. § SHI .6, Application Note 1:B details the
circumstances when the loss of caretaki-ng responsibilities may warrant departure. Even if
circumstances do not fit the guideline precisely,. the Court may nevertheless consider them under
its d-iseretion-ary authority. Gall v. United States; 128 S.Ct. 586.
I have not .elaborated upon the above ; factors, butthey provide an outline ofthe arguments
that will be presented at sentencing. Thank you for the oppontuinity to provide this letter in
support of Defendant. //
Ltespeétfully sphmitted,
I ` r II |\
_ -2. . ‘.' a_ , 1 _1 l
Kathlleen M. Jefnirigttl I
Q J
KM.!/alv .‘ i I,·'
cc: AUSA Keith Rosen _ `I
M. Lubinsky, U.S. Probation Officer
wu.;1 25224. 1 r'MOR338-83.1 107
Case 1:07-cr-00149-SLR
Document 118
Filed 07/14/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00149-SLR
Document 118
Filed 07/14/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cr-00149-SLR
Document 118
Filed 07/14/2008
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms