New DEFENDANT GEORGE STANTON’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUMmedia.mlive.com/news/detroit_impact/other/stanton memo.pdf · 2016. 11. 16. · Moore and record conversations. During these

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 12-20030 Hon. Nancy G. Edmunds GEORGE STANTON, Defendant. /

DEFENDANT GEORGE STANTON’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM Introduction

George Stanton will appear before this Court for sentencing on October 1,

2015 having pled guilty to Acceptance of Bribes in violation of 18 U.S. §

666(a)(1)(B), pursuant to a Rule 11 plea agreement. Under the Rule 11 plea

agreement the parties stipulated that the guideline range is 24-30 months.

Probation agrees with the stipulated guideline range.

The government, however, will be filing a Motion for Downward Departure

based on Defendant’s substantial assistance. Upon information and belief,

defendant anticipates that the government will recommend a 50% reduction from

the agreed upon guideline range. Of course, this Court is free to accept or reject

2:12-cr-20030-NGE-MKM Doc # 504 Filed 09/22/15 Pg 1 of 32 Pg ID 8523

the government’s recommendation and is also free, in light of United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), to impose a sentence outside the

guidelines, even absent the government’s motion.

Given Mr. Stanton’s critical and extensive cooperation and the various other

factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), Mr. Stanton respectfully suggests that this

Court, in the informed exercise of its discretion, should impose a sentence of

straight probation, or alternatively a sentence of probation coupled with a term of

home confinement. As more fully explained below, the proposed sentenced is

consistent with the sentence imposed on others who have cooperated in

investigations of corrupt City of Detroit officials. Such a sentence is entirely

consistent with the Supreme Court’s admonition that a sentence be “sufficient, but

not greater than necessary, to comply with” the purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that guide a judge in

determining the appropriate sentence since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision

in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) are certainly well known to Court,

as is the requirement that the Court “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater

than necessary, to comply with” the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).

Familiar, too, is the Supreme Court’s admonition in Gall v. United States, 522 U.S.

38 (2007), that in applying these factors, a sentencing judge “must make an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented.”


3

Although the promulgation of the Guidelines was an attempt by Congress to

promote uniformity in sentencing, Booker and its progeny, as well as the factors set

forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) make clear that sentencing involves more than a

formulaic response to crime and punishment, and requires the sentencing court to

consider offender characteristics that go beyond the simple issue of criminal

history, the only Guideline factor that speaks to the offender. Indeed, in United

States v. Gall, 522 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 596 (2007), the Supreme Court

specifically stated that a formulaic approach to sentencing is inappropriate:

On the other side of the equation, the mathematical approach assumes the existence of some ascertainable method of assigning percentages to various justifications. Does withdrawal from a conspiracy justify more or less than, say, a 30% reduction? Does it matter that the withdrawal occurred several years ago? Is it relevant that the withdrawal was motivated by a decision to discontinue the use of drugs and to lead a better life? What percentage, if any, should be assigned to evidence that a defendant poses no future threat to society, or to evidence that innocent third parties are dependent on him? The formula is a classic example of attempting to measure an inventory of apples by counting oranges.

The Supreme Court also made clear that in applying the § 3353(a) factors, a

sentencing judge “must make an individualized assessment based on the facts

presented” by the case, without giving presumptive weight to the Guidelines

sentencing range:

[A] district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range. As a matter of


4

administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark. The Guidelines are not the only consideration, however. Accordingly, after giving both parties an opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate, the district judge should then consider all of the § 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by a party. In so doing, he may not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable. He must make an individualized assessment based on the facts presented.

Id at 596-597.

Such an approach which gives individualized consideration to all of the

sentencing factors identified by the statute is not only commanded by the Booker

holding, but is logical as well, in view of the degree to which the Guidelines are

driven principally by the nature of the offense conduct, and only minimally by the

characteristics of the particular offender and his or her life and character. As the

Supreme Court noted in Gall, quoting its earlier opinion in Koon v. United States,

518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996), “It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial

tradition for the sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an

individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes

mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Id at 598.

Mr. Thadeus Dean of the United States Probation Department has prepared a

presentence report and counsel sees no need to reiterate what is contained in the

report. Nevertheless, undersigned counsel believes it appropriate to emphasize


5

some of the information contained in the report and supplement it with some

additional information.

Mr. Stanton has taken responsibility for his conduct. Thus, the question to

be answered is what sentence is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

comply with the purposes set forth in § 3553(a).” Under § 3553(a) the Court, in

addition to the Guideline range, should consider the following factors:

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;

(2) the need for the sentence imposed--

(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and

(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;

(3) the kinds of sentences available;

* * *

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct;

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the

offense.


6

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and

characteristics of the defendant

A. The nature and circumstances of the offense

At the time of the offense, Mr. Stanton was employed as Detroit city

Council woman Alberta Tinsley-Talabi’s chief of staff. In 2007, when the offense

occurred, Ms. Tinsley-Talabi, based in her position as a city Councilwoman, also

served on the Board of Trustees of the Police and Fire Retirement system (PFRS).

The Board of Trustees of the police and fire retirement system is responsible for

managing the funds in the PFRS. As part of their duties, the Board of Trustees

votes on various investments funded by the PFRS. As Ms. Tinsley-Talabi’s Chief

of Staff, Mr. Stanton would advise Ms. Tinsley-Talabi on the various investments

presented to the Board of Trustees.

Co–defendant Roy Dixon was an investment advisor and owner of Onyx

Capital Advisors, L.L.C. Mr. Dixon also operated a private equity fund, Onyx

Capital Advisor Fund I (OCAF). During the relevant time period, OCAF, acting on

behalf of PR Investments Group, Ltd., sought a multimillion dollar investment

from the PFRS for a project in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Mr. Dixon paid Mr.

Stanton $15,000 in return for his help in securing the funds from the PFRS for the

aforementioned investment.


7

In May of 2012, the agents came to Mr. Stanton’s house and he made an

initial statement. The agents then requested that he come to the United States

Attorney’s Office for a more in-depth interview which he agreed to do. While

being interviewed at the U.S. Attorney’s Office, it became apparent to Mr. Stanton

that he was more than a mere witness and contacted undersigned counsel.

After conferring with counsel, he immediately agreed to cooperate and was

fully debriefed. Moreover, at the meeting, Mr. Stanton agreed to cooperate

pro-actively by agreeing to contact Ms. Tinsley-Talabi, Paul Stewart, and James

Moore and record conversations. During these conversations, however, the

participants were very circumspect and did not make any damaging admissions.

Mr. Stanton has met with the agents on approximately 10 occasions and also

testified at trial. According to the government, Mr. Stanton provided credible and

important testimony.

B. The history and characteristics of the defendant.

The experience of living in this world teaches us that human beings, and

human lives, are multifaceted, and that a person cannot be fairly judged on the

basis of only one aspect of his or her life. When the entire picture of Mr. Stanton’s

life and circumstances, coupled with his decision to cooperate is put into

perspective, there are ample reasons to impose a non-custodial sentence.


8

To amplify and expand the picture of Mr. Stanton which may be available

for the Court’s consideration, counsel for Mr. Stanton has attached to this

submission letters from people close to Mr. Stanton.1 The letters portray Mr.

Stanton as one who was dedicated to improving the City of Detroit, understands

the important role that family, religion, and community service play in one’s life.

They describe a man who takes great pleasure in lending a helping hand to those

less fortunate. The letters also make clear his heartfelt and sincere remorse.

Finally, the letters also emphasize that Mr. Stanton’s involvement in this crime

does not stem from one who is inherently venal or corrupt.

His wife, Marquitta Stanton, whom he met with while working for

Councilwoman Tinsley-Talabi, who currently works as an investigator for the

Board of Police Commissioners writes of his dedication to the City of Detroit:

[George and I] were married in June 2014, after knowing each other for nearly twenty years. It happens that we met and became friends while we both were on the staff of City Councilwoman Alberta Tinsely-Talabi. I mention this because, not only do I know him now as the wonderful man who has committed to love and cherish me for life, but I have also witnessed him in a professional capacity, where I saw for myself his sincerity for advancing and proposing good public policy for the citizens of Detroit. His vision and drive for a better Detroit led him to propose the establishment of the city’s Show Cause Hearings Division that is still functioning today as an indispensable tool to bolster the city’s fight against blight. When local small

1 The letters are attached collectively as exhibit A.


9

business owners lamented about the endless red tape involved in establishing and operating their businesses, securing inspections and business licenses, etc., George formulated a plan to establish the Office of Targeted Business Development. These are just two of the many substantial, lasting monuments of his public policy efforts. Being a public servant to George was his profession, but it was not something into which he merely stumbled as he searched for purpose in life. He chose a career in public service for the same reason most non-elected public servants do – because life does not seem fulfilling for dedicated public servants if they are not helping improve the quality of life for others for the majority of their day – everyday. As a City Council staffer George took much personal pride in his work, but he never sought or had expectations of receiving accolades for his public policy initiatives. He was content with not being in the spotlight while he worked behind the scenes, and I have always admired that part of him.

Mr. Stanton’s mother, Roxie Banks, echoes his wife’s comments:

But [George’s] work for the City Council was especially meaningful to him and extremely rewarding for George. It was his way of giving back to the community on a large scale.

George often worked 60-hour weeks. He was always so passionate about how the city could provide better services and always had so many good ideas for how they could do it. I was especially proud of George because he continued to dedicate himself to his work even though he did not receive accolades, appreciation or support from his boss. He would complain to us about the horrible lack of professionalism he had to endure in his office on a daily basis. But he found a way to stay because of the rewarding work that he was doing and because he was able to take time from work as needed for his only son.


10

Ms. LaKisha Barclift Jones, an attorney and Legal Analyst for the Detroit

City Council, who has known Mr. Stanton for over 25 years also speaks of his

dedication to improving the City of Detroit:

Additionally, George and I also knew each other in a professional capacity. We worked together for seven years serving the City of Detroit. In his capacity as Director of Public Policy, he worked diligently to improve City operations, to give back to the community and to improve the quality of life for Detroit residents. Notably, he led the process to develop a regulatory process used to close businesses that repeatedly violate City ordinances and create nuisances in the community. Additionally, he drafted an ordinance that requires the City to conduct a toxic assessment test on all property before purchasing and accepting it so that the City would not be caught unaware of deleterious conditions that would later create a burden.

His former college roommate and longtime friend, Randall Washington,

writes that Mr. Stanton’s passion for public service began in college and continued

during his service as Ms. Tinsley-Talabi’s Chief of Staff:

George has always shown his passion for improving the community. George left a lasting impression on me during our freshman year at MSU when he ran for a spot on one of our residence hall’s leadership councils, the Case Hall Black Caucus. When George, the public policy major, saw a bias in how student workers were being assigned duties in our cafeteria, he made it his platform when he ran for the position. As a member of the caucus, he and the group presented their issues to the food service administration who agreed to rotate student assignments. I’ve always admired how he seeks out ways to make life better for those around him.

* * * George’s work in public service was more than a job for him. He saw it as an opportunity to have a meaningful impact on the lives of the people of Detroit and to help increase the quality of life in the


11

community. He found fulfillment in his work. I know because he never stopped talking about it. George worked long hours every week maintaining a high level of output to make up for the staff’s dispassionate efforts. He was trying to lead the staff by example despite having to endure an unprofessional and demoralizing work environment. Every Sunday I knew exactly where he would be – in the office reading reports and writing detailed talking points for the councilwoman who always struck me as somewhat inept and detached from the minutia of the day to day legislative process.

The letters also speak to the important role that family plays in Mr. Stanton’s

life. His wife writes:

I knew [George] was the man for me, in large part, because he is a good son to his mother. George calls his mother regularly, considers her needs when he and I are out running typical errands, advises her in her business affairs, etc. Being one of the few men in the family who live in the area, George is also always attentive to his aunties. He’s always there for them in the same ways he is there for his mother. In return, they have been a great help to George during this difficult time in his life. They’ve offered encouraging words and even volunteered to assist him financially. George and his living sister, Linda, are very close, talk regularly and have supported each other emotionally and financially over the years.

Mr. Stanton’ sister, Linda Stanton-Thomas, who is employed as a

transportation officer for the Michigan Department of Corrections also writes of

the important role that family plays in Mr. Stanton’s life:

George and I have been very close all of our lives; we are only 11 months apart in age and I am the oldest. Throughout our lives George’s always been very loving and supportive. . . There isn’t a moment in my life I have celebrated, cried, loved, achieved or failed without him being right by my side.


12

As a child he was typical little brother always in the way wanting to help with everything you were doing. . . I can remember him crying at times he could not be a part of what ever are other sister and I were doing. He would help us finish our chores so the three of us could play together. . . Not only has he been a great support to me, he is always been a loving and respectful son to our mother may very dedicated and hands-on father.

* * * What I admire most about my brother is his love and dedication to his son, Geordie. Fatherhood means everything to George. He is committed to being the best father he can be to his son. George has joint custody of his son. He and his first wife divorced when Geordie was two, he will celebrate his 17th birthday May 11. George is always taken them to doctor appointments, he attends all school and sport events, parent/teacher conference, he cooks, cares for him when he is sick. He does all the things a loving, connected, and devoted father would do for his child. What makes all of this so special is that George has never experienced this kind of love and devotion from his own father, yet is able to give all of this so freely to his son.

His pastor, Martina M. Orange, also writes of Mr. Stanton’s dedication to his

family:

When his first marriage ended in divorce, George insisted on joint custody of his then 2-year-old son. It has been heartwarming to hear family stories of how becoming a full time parent was a life style change for George, but one he was committed to and cherished. We have talked about taking time off from work when his son was sick and being proud of his ability to figure out why his son was crying. There were the times when he would go to his son's child care for a parent event and couldn't go back to work because his son had messed up his work clothes or because his son was making a huge fuss about not being able to leave with his dad.

* * *

From videotaping his son's first day at school, going to movies together, playing video games, all the sports practices he attended to countless hours of helping with, and checking, homework, being a


13

father has always been George's priority. He taught his son the value of working hard, being respectful and honesty. His son is now a senior in high school with a 3.6 GPA and looking forward to college . . . George is showing the same level of love and support to his stepdaughter who was diagnosed with major depression. I was particularly moved to find out how George spent a considerable amount of time researching and educating himself about the disorder so that he can support and assist her in the best possible way.

George has always been close to his mom as well as his aunts. They are all at an age now where getting around is not always easy. George will call to check on them and does not hesitate to offer his assistance to make their lives easier. This could entail work around the house, taking them to a doctor's appointment or going to the grocery store to pick up items for them. Recently, one of his aunts' called George because her refrigerator was not working properly. After confirming that she needed to call the repairman, George drove across town to help her move food to her freezer to keep from spoiling. His aunt didn't ask him to but he knew it would be a big help to her.

Finally, his father-in-law, Harrison Tolliver III, talks about how Mr. Stanton

never hesitates to lend a helping hand:

Over the years George has volunteered to help me with everything from heavy-lifting chores like cleaning out the basement and yard work, to taking the time to put me and other family and friends in touch with the right people to help with our concerns about city services. He even helped me with identifying the owner of the vacant property near my elderly mother’s home to get him to clean and board it up. I will admit George may have done all of that to campaign for my daughter’s hand in marriage, but I honestly had been trying to steer my daughter toward him anyway even before they began dating because I always saw George as a good, honest, hard-working, and stable man who would be good for her.

Both his minister, Reverend Martina L. Orange, and his mother, Roxie

Banks also write about Mr. Stanton’s involvement in charitable church activities:


14

George has also given of himself to support various charitable & outreach programs of our church. Over the years, he has been instrumental in helping the church secure turkeys and other food for our homeless meals program. He has worked with the church to clean & mow vacant lots, remove dead trees and bulk trash as well as delivering meals to elderly church members who are sick.

Reverend Orange

George doesn't hesitate to clear snow from the homes of his long retired neighbors who are not able to do so. He volunteers at the church for food basket giveaways and community cleanups.

Mother, Roxie Banks

It is well established that a defendant’s charitable good works can support a

variance. See e.g. United States v Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 571 (3rd Cir. 2009)

(“District court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant to probation

with a year of home detention, community service, restitution, and fine for tax

evasion, rather than to term of imprisonment based on “his negligible criminal

history, his employment record, his community ties, and his extensive charitable

works. . .”).

It seems clear that Mr. Stanton’s actions in this case stand in stark contrast to

his devotion to the family and the community. One naturally asks the question

what motivated him to commit this crime. His wife in her letter gives some insight

on why such a decent man made such a serious error in judgment:

After serving on [Council Woman Tinsley-Talabi’s] staff for over ten years, George began to seek other public service opportunities. He soon told me of how the councilwoman had been discouraging


15

potential employers from hiring him. George doesn’t wear his heart on his sleeve and he’s always emotionally composed, so I didn’t know then how deeply that rattled him. So much so that, in hindsight, I can see that he panicked, which led to him making a rash decision out of fear. George decided he would have to strike out on his own since the councilwoman was thwarting his efforts to separate from her. He incorporated a business consulting firm. I encouraged him and knew he would be an outstanding consultant because of his experience, creativity, can-do attitude and the numerous professional contacts he had made over the years. In George’s effort to hasten his departure from the councilwoman’s office and develop a client base, however, he made an impulsive and egregious error in judgment by accepting the bribe.

Mr. Stanton’s post-arrest conduct his been nothing less than exemplary. He

fully cooperated with the government’s investigation and has fully complied with

the terms of his pretrial release.

2. The “need for the sentence” to comport with the traditional purposes of

punishment.2

A. Retribution.

The first of the statutory factors - that the sentence imposed should “reflect

the seriousness of the offense, . . .promote respect for the law, and . . .provide just

punishment for the offense,” echoes the traditional concept of “retribution.” Such

2 The “traditional purposes of punishment . . . include retribution, rehabilitation, prevention of further crimes by the defendant, and deterrence of the defendant and others who might contemplate committing similar crimes. Hobbs v. County of Westchester, 397 F.3d 133, 158 (2d Cir. 2005) (citing 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 1.5(a)(2d ed.2003).


16

measurements are of course difficult to draw with precision. While undersigned

counsel certainly recognizes that punishment is a factor in the sentencing calculus,

undersigned counsel respectfully submits that it is not necessary to impose a term

of imprisonment. Undersigned counsel respectfully suggests that a non-custodial

sentence would be ample punishment when balanced against his cooperation and

the other 3553(a) factors.

B. Deterrence - General and Special

The two species of deterrence call for two kinds of analysis. As for general

deterrence - the need to fashion a punishment which will deter the public at large

from taking the same course of action as did the defendant - it seems reasonable to

conclude that a sentence which results in Mr. Stanton having a felony conviction,

after having provided a significant amount of cooperation would serve as a

sufficient disincentive to others who might otherwise be tempted to similar

conduct. Moreover, the recent spate of prosecutions and sentences meted out to

City of Detroit officials involved in public corruption has been well publicized and

certainly should serve as disincentive to others who might be tempted to engage in

such misconduct.

With respect to special deterrence - the need to dissuade the defendant

himself from future illegal conduct - the question seems far simpler. The letters


17

submitted on Mr. Stanton’s behalf leave no doubt that Mr. Stanton is extremely

remorseful and has taken full responsibility for the conduct which has brought him

before this Court and there is simply no reason whatsoever to believe that Mr.

Stanton will ever again engage in criminal conduct. Indeed, the letters from family

members and friends make clear that Mr. Stanton is genuinely remorseful: “In our

family meetings and conversations with Geordie and Kendall about this situation,

George has always made it clear that there is never a good reason for violating the

public trust. He has repeatedly expressed his regret, but he makes it clear that he

does not consider himself a victim in this situation. He has definitely taken

ownership for his poor judgment on this.” (Marquitta Stanton-wife); “George has

expressed to me many times his regret and remorse for taking that money. He is

embarrassed and deeply ashamed of the foolish mistake he made. (Linda

Stanton-Thomas-Sister); “George has told me time and again how he wishes he

would not have accepted that money. . .He puts on a brave face for me, but I know

him. I can tell he’s deeply ashamed and remorseful.” (Roxie Banks-Mother);

“[George] fully accepts the seriousness of his violation.” (Harrison B. Tolliver

III-Father-in-law); “George accepts full responsibility for his actions.”(Martina L.

Orange-Minister); Mr. Stanton has certainly gotten the message and a prison

sentence will have absolutely no effect on Mr. Stanton’s future conduct.


18

C. Incapacitation.

“The rationale for incapacitation is to allow society to ‘protect itself from

persons deemed dangerous because of their past criminal history.’” Allen v.

Woodford, 395 F.3d 979, 1009 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott,

Substantive Criminal Law 38 § 1.5 (2003)). As stated above, counsel submits that

there is simply no reason for the Court to believe that there is any reason to protect

society from Mr. Stanton.

D. Rehabilitation. There is little doubt based on Mr. Stanton’s post-arrest conduct that Mr.

Stanton has been fully rehabilitated. Moreover, his decision to cooperate is also a

sign of his rehabilitation. As recognized by Judge Motley, in United States v.

Motley, 807 F.Supp. 1063, 1067-168 (S.D. N. Y. 1992), “cooperation with the

Government...signals a step forward in rehabilitation.”

3. The kinds of sentences available.

In the wake of Booker, this Court is free to impose any kind of sentence

which it deems appropriate, from straight probation to imprisonment.

4. The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity.


19

The key word here, of course, is unwarranted. United States v. Newsom, 428

F.3d 685, 689 (7th Cir. 2005) (“we begin with the observation that § 3553(a) does

not ban all disparities; its concern is only with unwarranted disparities.”). In the

case at bar, to impose a non-custodial sentence would certainly not constitute an

unwarranted sentencing disparity when compared to the dispositions and sentences

of other persons involved in public corruption cases related to the City of Detroit.

Anthony Suave, the owner of Waste Management, who provided former

mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, “with gifts such as 20 free round-trips on his private jet,

a shopping spree in New York City, and a pair of 10,000 NBA finals tickets”,

received complete immunity in return for his cooperation despite the fact that one

of his companies was awarded a $50 million contract.

http://archive.freep.com/article/20121206/NEWS0102/121206075/Kwame-Kilpatri

ck-Bobby-Ferguson-public-corruption-trial-Anthony-Soave, as viewed January 12,

2015.

Similarly, Rachmale Avinish, the CEO of Lakeshore Engineering, received

complete immunity in exchange for his cooperation despite the fact that Lakeshore

engineering paid one of Bobby Ferguson’s companies, $1.7 million for no work

and Lakeshore Engineering received contracts with over $15 million.

http://www.freep.com/article/20121116/NEWS0102/121116045, as viewed


20

September 16, 2015. Thomas Hardiman, the then vice president of Lakeshore

Engineering, also was not prosecuted in exchange for his testimony.

http://www.clickondetroit.com/news/Kilpatrick-Trial-Contractor-Thomas-Hardima

n-testifies-Bobby-Ferguson-told-him-these-are-my-streets/17400478, as viewed

September 16, 2015.

This Court did not impose prison sentences on several former associates of

former mayor Kwame Kilpatrick who were charged and cooperated in the

investigation of Mr. Kilpatrick and Mr. Ferguson despite being intimately involved

in Mr. Kilpatrick’s corruption. Emma Bell, who, from 2003-2008, worked as a

fundraiser for Kilpatrick for Mayor, the Kilpatrick Inaugural Committee, and the

Kilpatrick Civic Fund received two years probation. The government’s sentencing

memorandum described her conduct as follows:

Ms. Bell was paid a commission from the funds she raised--usually between 10-15%. Kwame Kilpatrick required her to kick back half of the money in cash when her commission checks reached $5,000 or more. Ms. Bell dutifully complied with Mr. Kilpatrick’s directive; however, she failed to report her commissions on her federal tax returns. As a result, she owes the Internal Revenue Service restitution in the amount of $334,236.00, which represents the additional tax due and owing from her unreported income for tax years 2003 through 2008.

* * * She concealed her commissions by not depositing them into her bank accounts and by turning her commission checks into cash and cashier’s checks.


21

Government Sentencing Memorandum, RE 11, Page ID # 2-3.

Derrick Miller, who served as the city’s chief administrative officer from

2000 to 2005, received a sentence of one day imprisonment and three years of

supervised release with the first year of supervised release to be served in a

Residential Re-entry Center. Mr. Miller pleaded guilty to violating 18 U.S.C.

666(a), accepting money in exchange for official acts or influence and violating 26

U.S.C. 7206(1) for making false statements on his income tax return. In its

sentencing memorandum the government described Mr. Miler’s conduct as

follows:

Miller served as the city’s chief administrative officer from 2002 to 2005. In this position, he acted as the mayor’s liaison with other local, state and federal government agencies, and handled special projects crossing city department lines. From 2006 to 2007, Miller served as the city’s chief information officer. He left city government in October 2007 to start his own government consulting firm. In 2011, Miller pleaded guilty to violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a), which prohibits local public officials from accepting money in exchange for official acts or influence. Miller admitted that from 2005 to 2007, he accepted $115,000 in cash kickbacks from a real estate broker in connection with the lease or sale of city properties. Miller gave half of these kickbacks to Kilpatrick. At the time of the payments, Kilpatrick and Miller had authority and influence over the lease and sale of city properties.

Miller also pleaded guilty to violating Title 26, United States Code, Section 7206(1), which prohibits taxpayers from making false statements on their income tax returns. Miller failed to report on his 2007 tax returns $46,725 of the cash kickbacks he received from the


22

real estate broker. Miller also failed to report a $568,000 consulting fee he received shortly after leaving city government from a company called Inheritance Capital Group (ICG) in part for introductions Miller made while a city official to General Motors executives and city pension trustees in connection with ICG’s purchase and leaseback of a portfolio of GM properties.

In the relevant conduct portion of his plea agreement, Miller admitted to engaging in other misconduct while serving in public office. In 2003 and 2004, while he was the city’s chief administrative officer, he twice received $10,000 in cash from Karl Kado, owner of Metro Services Organization (MSO), for Miller’s assistance to MSO in obtaining and keeping contracts for electrical and cleaning services at Cobo Civic Center. At Kilpatrick’s direction, Miller also delivered between $10,000 and $20,000 cash from Kado to Kilpatrick.

In 20 and 2007, while Miller was the city’s chief information officer, he authorized public funds to be paid to a company set up by businessman Andrew Park to install security cameras and television screens throughout the city to detect and alert the public about potential threats of harm. Miller steered the money to a company Park incorporated specifically for the purpose of receiving those funds called Security Communications Alert Network (SCAN). Miller later received more than $10,000 from Park in part because of Miller’s assistance in obtaining the funding. At Kilpatrick’s direction, Miller obtained an additional $10,000 cash from Park, which Miller gave to Kilpatrick in a restaurant bathroom.

Miller failed to monitor SCAN’s work to ensure that the public funding Miller continued to authorize for SCAN was appropriate and justified. In late 2006, Miller learned that SCAN had improperly diverted a portion of the public funds (in actuality a total of $750,000) to Park’s unrelated Asian Village restaurant development. In an attempt to alleviate Park’s financial problems and get the diverted funds back to SCAN, Miller put in a good word for Asian Village with Kilpatrick’s representatives on the city pension board, Jeffrey


22

Beasley and DeDan Milton, who helped Asian Village secure a $2.75 million loan from the city’s general retirement system in May 2007.

Miller had discussions with Park and his business partner about joining their restaurant and security businesses after Miller left city employment. These proposals did not come to fruition, however, so Miller ultimately did not personally profit from the public funding of SCAN, other than the kickbacks he received. But Miller continued to approve funding to SCAN---despite knowing of its financial problems and its failure to complete its work---in part because he had been compromised by his improper financial dealings with Park. SCAN eventually failed to deliver any security system to the city, resulting in $4.4 million in losses to the city and the federal government. Park’s other company, Asian Village, also defaulted on its loan repayment obligations to the city pension fund.

Government Sentencing Memorandum, RE 555, Page ID # 16767-16769

The government recommended that Mr. Miller receive a sentence of 40

months. Based on his cooperation, Mr. Miller, however was not sentenced to

prison and instead was placed in a Residential Re-entry for a period of one year.

It is beyond debate that Mr. Miller’s corrupt acts were far more extensive than that

of Mr. Stanton’s.

Carl Kado, who pleaded guilty to tax offenses, but was admittedly involved

in bribery, was sentenced to 36 months probation. Mr. Kado, who owned a sundry

store in Cobo Hall, failed to report cash proceeds from the sales at the store and

used the unreported cash to bribe former Cobo Civic Center Director E. Louis


22

Pavledes and former city administrative director Derek Miller. In return for these

bribes, Mr. Kado received lucrative contracts at Cobo Hall for electrical, janitorial,

and food contracts. Government Sentencing Memorandum, RE 11, Page ID #53.

A sentence of probation or alternatively, a sentence of probation coupled

with a period of home confinement would certainly not constitute an unwarranted

sentencing disparity when viewed against the sentences of Mr. Kilpatrick’s

co-defendants who did not cooperate. Mr. Victor Mercado, the director of the

Detroit Water and Sewage Department from June of 2002-June of 2008, who

pleaded guilty two months into his trial, received a sentence of 1 day imprisonment

and 3 years of supervised release with the first 8 months of supervised release to be

served in a Residential Re-entry Center. Admittedly, Mr. Mercado did not profit

over and above his salary from his illegal acts.3 Nevertheless, Mr. Mercado played

an instrumental role in furthering the corruption that permeated the Kilpatrick

administration. In its sentencing memorandum, the government described his

conduct and motive for participating in the corruption as follows:

As the director of DWSD, Mercado was responsible for administering contracts with private companies wanting to do business with the City

3 Mr. Mercado was, however, the highest paid employee in the Kilpatrick administration earning $240,000 per year.


22

of Detroit. At the direction of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, Mercado took numerous steps to ensure that the mayor’s close friend Bobby W. Ferguson received substantial portions of contracts or subcontracts awarded by DWSD. Mercado made sure that Ferguson received these lucrative contracts by: 1) manipulating the procurement process to Ferguson’s advantage; 2) disqualifying Ferguson’s competitors on contracts; 3) directing winning bidders to include Ferguson on contracts or risk having their contracts held up; 4) steering contracts to Ferguson or the contractors Ferguson teamed with; and 5) pressuring contractors and city employees to pay Ferguson for substandard or improperly documented work. In short, Mercado served as an indispensable part of Kilpatrick and Ferguson’s illegal partnership. (Emphasis added).

Government Sentencing Memorandum, RE 551, Page ID # 16721-16722.

The government’s sentencing memorandum identified six specific projects

where Mr. Mercado played a critical role in steering tens of millions of dollars in

work to Bobby Ferguson. According to the government, Mr. Mercado was

instrumental in Mr. Ferguson receiving $3 million in reconstruction work

associated with a massive sinkhole on 15 Mile Road in Sterling Heights.

Moreover, Mr. Ferguson submitted inflated invoices on this project without

supporting documentation. According to the government, some of these invoices

were patently fraudulent. Mr. Mercado, however, personally intervened on

Ferguson’s behalf so that the invoices would be paid. Id at 16725-16727.


22

The second project involved Mr. Mercado’s involvement in cancelling a $10

million contract awarded to Lakeshore Engineering after Lakeshore declined to

give Mr. Ferguson 25% of the work. Mr. Mercado then awarded the contract to

another company. Id at 16727-16728.

The third instance involved Mr. Mercado helping to steer a $4.8 million

contract to Mr. Ferguson in connection with a downtown water main project.

Despite the fact that another company ranked above Mr. Ferguson’s in the bidding

process, Mr. Mercado in conjunction with Mr. Kilpatrick and Mr. Ferguson,

awarded the contract to Mr. Ferguson. Mr. Ferguson’s bid for the same work

was 160% higher. Id at 16728-16732.

The fourth instance involved Mr. Mercado and Mr. Kilpatrick rigging a

citywide water main project so Mr. Ferguson’s company would be awarded the

contract. It was Mr. Ferguson’s plan to partner with Lakeshore Engineering on this

contract. DWSD received seven bids and Lakeshore engineering was not among

the top two bidders. Mr. Mercado then told one of his subordinates that he wanted

to find another method to score the bids so that Lakeshore and Ferguson would get

the contract. Despite the fact that the method that was then used did not apply to


22

this type of a contract, Mr. Mercado instructed his subordinates to utilize the new

evaluation process. As a result, Lakeshore and Mr. Ferguson’s company were

awarded the contract. Id at 16732-16736

The fifth instance involved Mr. Mercado, along with Mr. Kilpatrick and

Mr. Ferguson, pressuring Waldbridge Aldinger Company to pay Mr. Ferguson’s

companies more than $4.6 million to construct a facility near the Rouge River.

Although Waldbridge had prepared a bid without Ferguson’s involvement in the

project. Subsequently, however, signed a handwritten agreement with Ferguson

promising him that if Waldbridge was awarded the contract, Mr. Ferguson would

receive $12.73 million of the work. One week after Walbridge agreed to sign this

side agreement, Mr. Mercado recommended Walbridge for the contract. Id at

16736-16738.

The final area identified by the government involved Mr. Mercado

pressuring Walbridge to partner with Mr. Ferguson on the Oakwood pump station

contract. In an effort to steer city work to Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Mercado

inappropriately inserted himself in a contract dispute between Mr. Ferguson and


22

Walbridge. This project involved the $140,000,000 million contract to repair the

Oakwood pump station. Id at 16738-16739.

Finally, Mr. Bernard Kilpatrick, Mayor Kilpatrick’s father, who did not

cooperate and was convicted of Subscribing a False Tax Return received a

sentence of 15 months imprisonment followed by one year of supervised release.

Mr. Stanton’s requested sentence would also not constitute an unwarranted

sentencing disparity when compared to fraud sentences nationwide. According to

the United States Sentencing Commission’s 2014 Sourcebook of Federal

Sentencing Statistics, just under 30% (28.8%) of all defendants convicted of

bribery offenses received a probationary sentence.4

http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/annual-reports-sourcebooks/2014/s

ourcebook-2014 (Table12), as viewed September 18, 2015.

Moreover, where the government filed a §5K1.1 motion, the national median

percentage decrease from the guideline minimum for bribery offenses was 70%

and national median sentence was 6 months where a §5K1.1 motion was

4 15.4% of the defendants received straight probation and 13.3% received probation coupled with some type of confinement


22

filed.http://www.ussc.gov/research-and-publications/annual-reports-sourcebooks/2

014/sourcebook-2014 (Table 30), as viewed September 18, 2015.

If the Court were to follow the national percentage decrease where the

government filed a Motion for Downward Departure based on substantial

assistance, Mr. Stanton’s minimum under the guideline range would be 7 months,

which would put him in a Zone B which specifically authorizes a sentence of

probation.

In light of Mr. Stanton’s cooperation, his lack of a prior criminal record and

the sentences imposed in cases related to City of Detroit Public Corruption, a

sentence of straight probation, or alternatively a sentence of probation coupled

with a term of home confinement would certainly not constitute an unwarranted

sentencing disparity.

CONCLUSION

A review of all the letters leaves no doubt that despite the conduct that led to

his plea in the case at bar, George Stanton is, at his core, a decent, caring, and

compassionate human being who deeply cares about his family and the


22

community. His work with his church predates his indictment in the case at bar,

and reflects a true commitment to others rather than an eleventh hour attempt to

cast himself in a favorable light prior to sentencing.

His efforts to make amends for his conduct have been sincere and earnest

and there is no doubt that Mr. Stanton fully understands that what he did was

wrong. His poor judgment was a product of his desire to strike out on his own and

his misguided desire to have a financial cushion while he attempted to develop a

client base. The proposed sentence “is sufficient but not greater than necessary to

achieve the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Respectfully submitted, s/ Mark J. Kriger Attorney for Defendant Stanton 645 Griswold, Suite 1717 Detroit, MI 48226 313-967-0100 [email protected] Michigan Bar No. 30298


22


22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on January 20, 2015, I electronically filed the foregoing

paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will send

notification of such filing to all counsel of record.

mailto:[email protected] I also certify that on January 20, 2015, I will

provide a courtesy copy to the chambers of the Hon. George Caram Steeh and Lara

M. Catrell, United States Probation.

s/ Mark J. Kriger Attorney for Defendant Stanton 645 Griswold, Suite 1717 Detroit, MI 48226 313-967-0100 [email protected] Michigan Bar No. 30298


New DEFENDANT GEORGE STANTON’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUMmedia.mlive.com/news/detroit_impact/other/stanton memo.pdf · 2016. 11. 16. · Moore and record conversations. During these

Documents