UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA vs. ERIC ROMANDI : : : CRIMINAL NO. 3:06CR161(EBB) February 9, 2009
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING Introduction This Court has sentenced two dozen other defendants in this case and is completely familiar with the nature of the overarching criminal enterprise, the offenses committed by the many other defendants, and the criminal acts committed by Eric Romandi. The Court undoubtedly has formed at least a preliminary sense of a sentence for Mr. Romandi that would be consistent with the seriousness of his role and would be proportionate to sentences given to other participants. These factors are, of course, relevant in light of the Court’s statutory duty under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and to avoid unwarranted disparities among defendants with similar records who have committed similar offenses. Equally important in fashioning a sentence that best achieves the basic purposes of sentencing are the history and characteristics of the individual being sentenced. See 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Eric Romandi comes before this Court accepting responsibility for his criminal conduct, accepting also the punitive consequences of that conduct, and feeling great shame and regret for what he has done. Attached hereto is a personal statement written by Mr. Romandi accepting responsibility and expressing great regret for his criminal conduct. In pleading guilty, Eric Romandi agreed to pay a substantial financial penalty and he agreed with the government that a sentence in the advisory Guidelines range of 37-46 months would be reasonable and that neither he nor the government would seek a sentence outside that range. As in all cases, this Guidelines calculation is based upon an a priori assessment of the seriousness of the offense as determined by the Sentencing Commission and consideration of the characteristics of the defendant, limited to his criminal history. In short, except for departures which the parties here have agreed not to seek, the Guidelines calculation establishes a
-2sentencing range based entirely upon the negative factors: Mr. Romandi’s commission of the admitted crimes and his felony conviction in 1980. Respectfully, and consistent with both the plea agreement and the statutory importance of fully considering a defendant’s background, we urge the Court to find that the sentencing range agreed to by the parties is correct and appropriate and further to find that a sentence at the low end of the range – which would be the third most severe sentence imposed in this case – would be sufficient but not greater than needed to accomplish the essential purposes of sentencing this defendant. A. Sentencing Law Although now well settled, the law governing sentencing bears brief review before addressing its application here. The Sentencing Guidelines are a factor that the Court must consider in tailoring a sentence to fit a particular defendant and the offense of conviction. In Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Supreme Court declared the Guidelines to be advisory but it also explained that these advisory Guidelines must be considered in determining a particular sentence. The Court must, therefore, “determine the applicable Guidelines range[,]” and “[t]he applicable Guidelines range is normally to be determined in the same manner as before Booker/Fanfan.” United States v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 111 (2d Cir. 2006). More fundamentally, the Court must consider the basic statutory purposes of sentencing codified in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In particular, this requires balancing the need for any sentence to provide just punishment, adequate deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation. Of great importance and undoubtedly the greatest difficulty, the sentencing court must consider all these relevant purposes, the seriousness of the offenses and a defendant’s background in deciding upon a specific sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve these sometimes conflicting objectives. See United States v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180, 188 (2d Cir. 2008)(en banc). B. Eric Romandi’s History and Characteristics In deciding whether to sentence Mr. Romandi within the range agreed upon by the parties to be reasonable and, if so, in determining where in that range to set the sentence, the Court can and should weigh Mr. Romandi’s positive and mitigating characteristics. This aspect of sentencing was recently
-3well summarized by United States District Judge Rakoff: [S]urely, if ever a man is to receive credit for the good he has done, and his immediate misconduct assessed in the context of his overall life hitherto, it should be at the moment of his sentencing, when his very future hangs in the balance. This elementary principle of weighing the good with the bad, which is basic to all religions, moral philosophies, and systems of justice, was plainly part of what Congress had in mind when it directed courts to consider, as a necessary sentencing factor, ‘the history and characteristics of the defendant.’ United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp. 2d 441, 513-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). The Presentence Report notes that “there are a number of mitigating circumstances that warrant consideration.” PSR ¶ 106. It also comments that “[i]n light of the defendant’s service in the United States Marines Corp during the Vietnam war, the Court may consider whether his military record is extraordinary, thereby warranting a downward departure pursuant to USSG § 5H1.11.” PSR ¶ 102. Eric Romandi served this country with honor and distinction during the Viet Nam war. A copy of his record of military service is attached hereto. On June 29, 1964, at age 17, Mr. Romandi enlisted in the Marines, and he was honorably discharged four years later on July 13, 1968. Thereafter, he served another two years in the Marine Corps reserves. PSR ¶ 89. During his active duty in the war, Mr. Romandi was crew chief for a medivac helicopter. For seven months, as described in the Presentence Report, “he was in charge of running daily rescue missions, two to three a day, lifting wounded and/or dead soldiers out of active combat zones.” PSR ¶ 89. Mr. Romandi has waived any right to seek a downward departure for any reason, but the Court can consider his military record, which indeed was extraordinary, as a weighty favorable factor that supports a sentence below the top of the sentencing range. Particularly in this time of war, meritorious and voluntary military service should be credited as a significant mitigating factor. The Presentence Report also notes as a mitigating factor that Eric Romandi “is a devoted husband and father to three young children” and has “a keen, painful appreciation of the negative impact his conduct is having on his family and the community.” PSR ¶ 106. Mr. Romandi’s role as a loving and supportive father and the fragility of his family is detailed in the Presentence Report, and attested to in character letters submitted to the Court through Probation, and will not be repeated here. PSR ¶¶
-479, 81. That families suffer from a defendant’s criminal conduct and consequential imprisonment is a facet of sentencing found in many cases. At the same time, however, strong family ties can be a factor that weighs in favor of a sentence below the maximum that might otherwise seem appropriate. While it has been said before in other cases that the defendant should have considered family ties and been deterred from committing the criminal act that brings him to court for sentencing, in fashioning a sentence for the criminal conduct a sentencing court can consider the positive role an offender plays in his family as a factor that may support a sentence below the maximum sentence that otherwise might be appropriate. See Sentencing Guidelines, Chapter Five, Part H – Specific Offender CharacteristicsIntroductory Commentary (“The Commission has determined that certain circumstances are not ordinarily relevant to the determination of whether a sentence should be outside the applicable guideline range. Unless expressly stated, this does not mean that the Commission views such circumstances as necessarily inappropriate to the determination of the sentence within the applicable guideline range[.]”). C. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense As the government has noted in its sentencing memoranda regarding other defendants, the Court has extensive familiarity with this case and the Court has admonished those defendants that the racketeering offense is extremely serious. Eric Romandi does not challenge that assessment. In its sentencing brief regarding Richard Galietti, who was sentenced to 46 months of imprisonment (the high end of his Guidelines range), the government described the RICO conspiracy as a “corrupting operation” that “was long-lived, extensive, predicated on arson and other acts of violence, threats of violence, economic extortion, fraud, bribery and witness tampering.” Again, Eric Romandi does not dispute this characterization. The Presentence Report details the RICO and tax fraud offenses to which Eric Romandi pled guilty, and he has not objected to that part of the Report. Based upon the seriousness of these offenses, his participation in them and his criminal history, Eric Romandi faces a Guidelines imprisonment range that reflects relative culpability below James Galante but even with Richard Galietti. In their plea agreement, the parties here agreed that the sentencing range for Mr. Romandi’s criminal conduct in committing the two offenses was 37-46
-5months, which took into consideration increases for both offenses based upon Mr. Romandi’s obstruction of justice and an overall increase because of his commission of the two offenses, which the Sentencing Guidelines do not group as one. The parties agreed that the RICO offense had a base offense level of 19 under USSG § 2E1.1(a), to which two points were added for the obstruction of justice. The tax offense had a base offense level of 18 under USSG §§ 2T1.9(a)(1), 2T1.1(a)(1), and 2T4.1 because Mr. Romandi was responsible for tax loss of $200,000-400,000. Two points were also added to this offense level for obstruction. Two more levels were added to the higher of the two offense levels because the offenses were not grouped, and three levels were subtracted for Mr. Romandi’s acceptance of responsibility, resulting in a total offense level of 20 and a corresponding imprisonment range of 37-46 months because Mr. Romandi is in criminal history category II as a result of a 1980 conviction. The Presentence Report follows the same analysis in reaching a total offense level of 20 and a sentencing range of 37-46 months. PSR ¶¶ 45-65, 69-70, 92. It offers, however, an alternative analysis that would increase the offense level for the RICO offense to 32 under USSG §§ 2A4.1(a), that would add two levels under USSG § 2A4.1(b)(3) for use of a gun, and that would increase the Guidelines imprisonment range to 121-151 months. PSR ¶ 67. The defendant has objected to this proposed application of the Guidelines and that objection is attached to the Second Addendum to the Presentence Report and is incorporated here by reference. The defendant notes that the Second Addendum comments that “the Court did not apply the kidnaping guidelines in determining [James Galante’s] sentence” and he urges the Court to reach the same conclusion here. Should the Court do so, the advisory Guidelines range for Eric Romandi would be 37-46 months, the range which the government and the defendant have agreed would be reasonable and within which they have agreed to limit their sentencing requests. D. Balancing the Sentencing Factors and Purposes This Court has emphasized the seriousness of the offenses committed in this case in sentencing co-defendants and Mr. Romandi fully anticipates that the government will advocate a sentence at the
-6high end of the Guidelines range based upon his participation in the 1992 truck burning. PSR ¶¶ 22-32. As serious as that aspect of the offense was, it occurred more than 15 years ago. While that passage of time may not diminish its seriousness, it can affect the need to impose a maximum sentence now for that criminal conduct. The government may argue also that Mr. Romandi was a trusted and central conspirator whose role continued to the end of the conspiracy, but his role in the conspiracy and his obstructive conduct are measured within the Guidelines calculation of the 37-46 month imprisonment range. So, while the offenses were serious and Mr. Romandi’s involvement was significant, it appears to have been somewhat less so than that of co-defendant Richard Galietti who was sentenced at the high end of this same Guidelines range. Respectfully, a sentence here at the high end of the range is not needed to advance the statutory purposes of reflecting the seriousness of the offense, promoting respect for the law or providing just punishment. General deterrence can also be promoted by a sentence in an individual case, but it could be argued in any case that the maximum sentence would best serve this purpose. Courts recognize, however, that general deterrence cannot be the primary purpose of a particular sentence. In this case, the prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of so many defendants has already achieved this statutory objective and the imposition here of a maximum sentence is not needed to reinforce this message. Protecting the public from further criminal conduct by Eric Romandi does not require a sentence above the low end of the applicable Guidelines range. If sentenced to 37 months in prison, Mr. Romandi would be 65 upon his return to his family and the community. He would no longer be involved with James Galante, who the government aptly described as “corrupt and corrupting.” United States Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (Galante) at 11. As demonstrated by the letters sent to the Court on behalf of Mr. Romandi, he is extremely devoted to his family and will feel deeply the loss of his family while imprisoned – a painful penalty certain to completely satisfy the need for specific deterrence even if the sentence is at the bottom of the Guidelines range. Conclusion Eric Romandi comes before this Court accepting his responsibility for the consequences to be
-7imposed at sentencing for his criminal conduct. He appreciates the consideration he has been shown in being permitted to travel for family purposes while this case was pending. He has demonstrated by his conduct during this time that he can and will abide by the requirements of supervision when he is eventually released from prison. Respectfully, he urges the Court to find that the positive factors in his background and in his current life outweigh the need to impose a sentence at the high end of the Guidelines range as a means to promote the statutory purposes of sentencing. He asks the Court, therefore, to find that a term of imprisonment for 37 months would be sufficient but not greater than needed to serve these purposes. Respectfully submitted, THE DEFENDANT, ERIC ROMANDI THOMAS G. DENNIS FEDERAL DEFENDER Dated: February 9, 2009 /s/ Paul F. Thomas Asst. Federal Defender 265 Church St., Suite 702 New Haven, CT 06510 Bar No. Ct01724 (203) 498-4200 Email: paul.thomas@fd.org CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 9, 2009, a copy of the foregoing Defendant’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing was filed electronically and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF System. /s/ Paul F. Thomas ct01724 Office of the Federal Defender 265 Church St., Suite 700 New Haven, CT 06510 Phone: (203) 498-4200 Fax: (203) 498-4207 Email: paul.thomas@fd.org
no longer a document attached