Rick Renzi sentencing memorandum

Case 4:08-cr-00212-DCB-BPV Document 1308 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Chris Niewoehner ( Pro Hac Vice) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-3000 Facsimile: (202) 429-3902 [email protected] Kelly B. Kramer ( Pro Hac Vice) Joseph P. Minta ( Pro Hac Vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000 Facsimile: (202) 263-5207 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Defendant Richard G. Renzi

11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

12

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

13 14

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

vs. RICHARD G. RENZI, JAMES W. SANDLIN, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 4:08-cr-00212-TUC-DCB 4:08-cr-00212-TUC-DCB SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF RICHARD G. RENZI


1

Table of Contents Page

2 3

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 4

4

BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 5

5

I. MR. RENZI'S UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION .................................................. .................................................................. ................ 5

6

II. MR. RENZI'S DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS ................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................................ 7

7 8

III.

MR. RENZI'S SERVICE IN CONGRESS ........................................................ ................ 7

9

A.

Working to Resolve the Bennett Freeze ................................................ ................................................................ ................ 8

10

B.

Improving Schools and Education ................................................ ......................................................................... ......................... 8

11

C.

Providing Affordable Housing Opportunities ............................................... ........................................................ ......... 9

12

D.

Building and Improving Healthcare Facilities .............................................. ....................................................... ......... 9

13

IV.

HELPING OTHERS AND PERSONAL GENEROSITY .............................................. 10

14

A.

Sean Minton ....................................................... .................................................. 10

15

B.

Phil Cancik ................................................ .................................................................................................... .................................................... ....... 11

16

C.

Fundraiser for Fallen Capitol Police Officers ............................................... ...................................................... ....... 11

17

D.

Erika Hill ................................................... ....................................................................................................... .................................................... ....... 12

18

E.

Support for a Deceased Friend's Daughter ..................................................... ..... 12

19

F.

Care for Constituents in Need ....................................................... ....................... 12

20

G.

Donation of Property to the Catholic Church ............................................... ...................................................... ....... 12

21

V.

22

ARGUMENT

23

I.

24 25

HEALTH ISSUES ................................................. ..................................................................................................... .................................................... ....... 13 ....................................................... .................................................... ....... 13

THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE BUT ONE FACTOR AMONG ..................... MANY THAT THE COURT MUST CONSIDER ......................................................... 13 A. There is No Basis For any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 1 Offenses Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)......................................................................................................... 14

26

1.

Legal Standards .............................................. ........................................................................................ .......................................... 14

27

2.

The Government Cannot Quantify Any Loss to the Aries Group Under the Second Prong P rong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) ......................... .................. ....... 15

28

-2-


1

3.

2 3

B.

4 5 6 7

II.

There is No Basis For Any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 2 Offenses (Insurance) Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under §2B1.1. ................................................................................................ ...... 19

MR. RENZI'S HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF HIS OFFENSE WARRANT A NON-GUIDELINES SENTENCE ........ 20 A. Mr. Renzi's Personal History and Characteristics Suggest a BelowGuidelines Sentence Sen tence ................................................... ............................................................................................. .......................................... 21 1. Mr. Renzi's Good Works and Public Service .......................................... 21

8 9

The Government Cannot Show that Either Mr. Renzi or Mr. Sandlin Gained Anything of Value Under the Third Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) §2C1.1(b)(2) ............................................... ................................................................................ ................................. 16

2. B.

Mr. Renzi's Family Ties .................................................... ....................... 22

The Nature and Seriousness of Mr. Renzi's Offenses .......................................... 23

10

1.

The Public Corruption Offenses ................................................ .............................................................. .............. 23

11

2.

The Insurance Offenses..................................................... ....................... 25

12

C.

Mr. Renzi's Conviction, the Proposed Sentence, and His Public Downfall Would Promote Respect for the Law and Effectively Deter Others .................................................................................................. ....... 26

D.

A Lengthy Prison Sentence Is Not Needed to Protect the Public Because There is No Risk of recidivism ................................................ .............................................................. .............. 27

E.

A Below-Guidelines Sentence Would Help to Avoid Disparities With Sentences Given to Defendants for Similar Offenses .......................................... 28

13 14 15 16 17 18

CONCLUSION

....................................................... .................................................... ....... 29

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-


INTRODUCTION

1 2

Mr. Renzi has lived a life dedicated to his family, his community, and his faith.

3

As a Member of Congress, he helped to improve the lives of many constituents who

4

faced issues of poverty, poor health health care, and a lack of basic housing. He was a

5

dedicated member of the pro-life movement, and through his expertise and hard work

6

created an innovative insurance program that was crucial to the continued viability of

7

the thousands of crisis pregnancy pregnancy centers that were vital to the movement’s movement’s efforts. As

8

a husband and father, he raised twelve children and instilled in them the values that

9

were so important in his own life.

10

Though he achieved remarkable success during his short time in Congress, Mr.

11

Renzi has also known failures. failures. In this case, a jury of Mr. Renzi Renzi’s peers found that he

12

was guilty of public corruption and of making false statements to insurance regulators.

13

Mr. Renzi respects that verdict, appreciates the seriousness of these off enses, and

14

stands ready to be sentenced by the Court.

15

But as recognized by Probation, this case is unique in many ways that take it

16

out of the heartland heartland of corruption and fraud cases. Mr. Renzi was convicted convicted even

17

though: 1) what he tried to achieve, achieve, retiring the water water use on the Sandlin Property, Property,

18

was unquestionably in the best interest of the public; and 2) Mr. Renzi received

19

nothing more for his efforts to include the Sandlin Property in a land exchange than he

20

would have received received anyway. As a result, Probation concluded, concluded, and Mr. Renzi agrees, agrees,

21

that this is the kind of case in which the Sentencing Guidelines do not accurately

22

reflect Mr. Renzi’ Renzi’ss culpability. Probation concluded concluded that a term of imprisonment imprisonment of 33

23

months was a sufficient departure from the Guidelines range that Probation found

24

applied.

25

But as Mr. Renzi has already established, a more accurate Guidelines

26

calculation results in a range of 33-41 months imprisonment, so any departure from

27

that range yields yields a sentence below that range. As explained in this memorandum, memorandum, Mr.

28

Renzi’s history and characteristics, including his good works and family ties, support a -4-


1

sentence well below the corrected Guidelines Guidelines range. Mr. Renzi has already suffered suffered

2

from a long and public fall f all from grace, which has placed extreme stress on his family

3

and his own health. Given his age and lack lack of a criminal history, Mr. Renzi Renzi poses no

4

risk of recidivism. Accordingly, Mr. Renzi Renzi asks this Court to impose a sentence sentence

5

significantly below the corrected Guidelines sentencing range of 33-41 33- 41 months’

6

imprisonment. BACKGROUND

7 8

I.

MR. RENZI’S UPBRINGING AND EDUCATION

Mr. Renzi was born on June 11, 11, 1958 in Monmouth, New Jersey. Jersey. He is the

9 10

oldest of five children children of Gen. Eugene Renzi and Faye Faye Renzi, née Barker. As a child,

11

Mr. Renzi’s family moved frequently due to his father’s military career. Throughout

12

his life, Mr. Renzi was strongly influenced influ enced by his father’s service to his h is country as an

13

officer and later general in the United States Army, and by a strong commitment to the

14

importance of family. family. From an early age, age, Mr. Renzi served as a father figure to his

15

younger siblings while his father was serving a tour in tour in the Vietnam War. War. Mr. Renzi’s Renzi’s

16

mother was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis while he was still in high school, and

17

during that time Mr. Renzi continued to support his his siblings. Ralph Renzi, Mr.

18

Renzi’s youngest sibling, writes that during all this time, “Rick balanced a life of

19

school, sports, some part time time work and the role of father. father. For many his role may may have

changed.” Ex. A-9, Letter from Ralph 20 been temporary; for my brother Rick it never changed.” 21 22

Renzi. Mr. Renzi went on to attend high school in Sierra Vista, AZ, and later college at

Arizona University (“NAU”), (“NAU”) , where he received a football scholarship. He 23 Northern Arizona 24

was regarded by his peers peers as a loyal, caring friend and a strong leader. Roseanna

25

Lindley, a friend of Mr. Renzi’s who has known known him since the two attended high

26

school and college together, writes, “He kept a helpful watch on a few f ew of us (former (f ormer

27

classmates) to make make sure that no one ever mistreated mistreated or was unkind to us. He was the

28

‘big brother’ type type that living in a small town produces….” Ex. A-6, Letter from -5-


1

Roseanna Lindley. Father Rudy Rosales, who who met Mr. Renzi as a student student athletic

2

trainer on the NAU football team, writes that “many people just considered us athletic

3

trainers or just ‘water boys.’ But not Rick; he and others respected us and considered

4

us valuable team members and brothers.” Ex. A-18, Letter from Fr. Rudy Rosales. Ros ales.

5

Regardless of what else was taking place in Mr. Renzi’s life, he never lost sight of

6

friends and family. family. Bob Orrill, a friend of Mr. Renzi’s Renzi’s since since their days playing

7

football together at NAU, recalls that when he suffered a heart attack in September

8

2002 (during the home stretch of Mr. Renzi’s campaign for election to Congress),

9

“Rick was at the hospital with my family waiting to see me as I was b rought back to

10

my room after after surgery.” Ex. A-20, Letter of Bob Orrill.

11

Mr. Renzi married his wife, Roberta Renzi, née Stuart, in 1980 in Fort

12

Huachuca, Arizona, and together they had twelve children. Ron Renzi, Mr. Renzi’s

13

oldest son, recalls a father who w ho “would work as hard as he could all day, and still find

14

the time to play catch with his sons until it was too dark to see the ball.” ball.” Ex. A-4,

15

Letter from Ron Renzi. Renzi. Mr. Renzi often worked worked two or even three jobs in in order to

that his wife could remain home with their children. children. Ex. A16 provide for his family, so that 17

7, Letter from Roberta Roberta Renzi; Ex. A-16, Letter Letter from Tim Doser. Although the family

18

endured some lean times financially, Mr. Renzi “created opportunity for himself

19

through hard work and sheer deter mination,” mination,” and taught his children to always be

20

mindful of all that they had to be thankful for. Ex. A-4, Letter Letter from Ron Renzi. Renzi. Even

21

after he was elected to Congress, Mr. Renzi eschewed the social scene on the Hill,

to keep his evenings free to spend time time with his family. Ex. A-12, 22 preferring instead to 23

Letter from Patty Roe. As a father, Mr. Renzi encouraged his children’s academic and

24

athletic pursuits, and strove to instill in them his values of faith, family, and charity.

25

Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi.

26 27 28 -6-


1

II.

2

MR. RENZI’S DEVELOPMENT OF AN INSURANCE PROGRAM FOR CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS

Mr. Renzi’s life has been defined by b y his spirituality and religious devotion.

3 4

Roseanna Lindley writes of Mr. Renzi’s experience on a pilgrimage in Mexico, “whe re

5

he walked on his knees for f or two miles to the cathedral to honor the Blessed Mother.”

6

Ex. A-6, Letter from Roseanna Lindley. Mr. Renzi was also an ardent supporter of the

7

rights of the unborn and worked worked passionately to advance advance that cause. A vital

8

component of those efforts were the hundreds of crisis pregnancy centers (“CPCs”)

9

around the country that provided counseling services to pregnant women and offered

10

alternatives to abortion. abortion. These centers typically had only very limited financial financial

11

resources, and and as the costs of insuring the risk of litigation arising from the centers’

12

activities mounted, many were unable to afford the cost of obtaining insurance

13

coverage. Ex. A-11, Letter Letter from Tom Glessner. It was at this time that Mr. Renzi, working in concert with the national

14 15

organizations representing these centers, worked to develop an innovative group

16

insurance program that would allow these centers to obtain coverage at a rate that they

17

could afford. Mr. Renzi was asked by Tom Tom Glessner, President of NIFLA NIFLA (an

18

organization representing many CPCs), to develop an insurance program at a fraction f raction

19

of the cost that the centers were paying on the market. Mr. Renzi met that challenge, challenge,

20

obtaining coverage for centers at an annual premium of $1,000 or o r less where centers in

21

the past had sometimes paid $40,000 or more. Id . Mr. Glessner Glessner writes that this this

22

coverage is “absolutely essential for the work of these centers to continue,” and that

23

“This network would not be in existence today in such a dramatic way if it were not

24

for the committed work of Rick Renzi.” Renzi. ” Id .

25

III.

26

MR. RENZI’S SERVICE IN CONGRESS

As a Member of Congress representing Arizona’s First Congressional District,

27

Mr. Renzi came to the aid of his country, his district and his constituents in ways great

28

and small. Mr. Renzi was a constant constant advocate for his constituents, constituents, especially those in -7-


1

the District’s poorest areas. Kathy Kitcheyan, a former Chairwoman of the San Carlos

2

Apache Tribe, describes Mr. Renzi as a “spokesman for improving the lives of our

Kathy Kitcheyan. Below is a summary of some of of Mr. 3 peo ple.” Ex. A-5, Letter from Kathy 4

Renzi’s most important achievements during his time in Congress.

5

A.

Working to Resolve the Bennett Freeze

6

When Mr. Renzi was elected to Congress, thousands of Navajo were living in

7 barely habitable housing as a result of the “Bennett Freeze” implemented in 1966 by 8

the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs during the course of a longstanding

9

land dispute between between the Hopi and Navajo Navajo Tribes. The Freeze halted all all development

10

on the affected land, and left the thousands of Navajo remaining on the land living in

11

third-world conditions. See LOS A NGELES TIMES, “Trying To Be [sic] Rebuild After

12

40 Frozen Years,” Nov. 5, 2009, attached as Ex. D. Mr. Renzi took action to solve

13

this problem that had persisted for forty years. Navajo Delegate Delegate Katherine Bennally Bennally

14

writes: “It is a sad situation where inhumane conditions exist within the State of

15

Arizona and the United States of America. America. What Rick did was was travel with his

16

committee members members to the area to witness first-hand the substandard housing, no

17

electricity, electricity, no running water and no waste waste water systems. Today, the Bennett Freeze Freeze

18

has been lifted and the living conditions are slowly sl owly improving.” Ex. A-3, Letter from

19

Katherine Bennally. As a result of Mr. Renzi’s efforts to raise awareness, legislation

20

ending the freeze finally passed Congress. Peter MacDonald, former former Chairman of the

so -called Bennett 21 Navajo Tribe, notes that “Rick Renzi helped put an end to the so-called 22

Freeze; thus, allowing more than 10,000 people living within the area to repair their

23

old homes, build new homes and receive economic development assistance with water

24

and power lines. Rick Renzi has a heart for people people who are less fortunate.” fortunate.” Ex. A-14,

25

Letter from Peter MacDonald.

26

B.

Improving Schools and Education

27

As Sarah Jones, one of Mr. Renzi’s former staffers writes, “education was in a

state in the First District.” District.” Ex. A-19, Letter Letter from Sarah Jones. Jones. Mr. 28 particularly sad state -8-


1

Renzi made improving improving education a top priority during during his tenure. Stacie Zanzucchi, Zanzucchi,

2

Principal of Cococino High School, writes that Mr. Renzi “went so far as to organize a

regarding education in Northern Arizona Arizona and brought the U.S. U.S. Secretary 3 public forum regarding 4

of Education to speak to our community co mmunity and answer questions regarding the Federal

5

Government’s role in education in rural communities communities such as as ours. He brought

6

funding to schools to provide programs for low socio economic economic families. Many of

7

these programs still exist and continue to thrive.” Ex Ex.. A-17, Letter from Stacie

8

Zanzucchi. He was also a key proponent proponent of the Navajo Nation Nation Higher Education Act, Act,

9

which provided much needed funding for the modernization and repair of community

10

college facilities facilities on the Navajo Reservation. Reservation. Ex. A-21, Letter from Wanda Wanda

11

MacDonald. Mr. Renzi also obtained funds funds to replace a dilapidated dilapidated school in the

12

Dennehotso community, community, thereby providing a safe environment for children from

13

kindergarten to eighth eighth grade to attend school. Ex. A-10, Letter from Helen Helen Bonnaha.

14

C.

Providing Affordable Housing Opportunities

15

When Mr. Renzi was elected to Congress, the First District faced staggering

16

issues of poverty. poverty. Alix Norton, one of Mr. Renzi’s staff, writes of visiting visiting families on

17

the reservations living in “decrepit conditions, even e ven an elderly lady with no home who

18

slept in the the middle of her sheep to stay warm.” Ex A-13, Letter from Alix Norton.

19

Mr. Renzi made it a top priority to address inadequate housing on Native American

20

land. Mr. Renzi hosted a Congressional Congressional field hearing in Tuba City, City, Arizona to address

American housing issues, and sponsored and helped pass the Homeownership 21 Native American 22

Opportunities for Native Americans Act of 2004, H.R. 4471, which helped provide

23

financial flexibility flexibility to support creation creation of housing on Native American lands. lands. Ex. A-8,

24

Letter from Rosie Tsosie-Bingham; Ex. A-21, Letter from Wanda MacDonald; Ex A-

25

13, Letter from Alix Norton.

26

D.

Building and Improving Healthcare Facilities

27

Arizona’s First District is sprawling, largely rural, and in the pas t suffered from

28

a dearth of adequate adequate healthcare facilities. facilities. In many parts of the district, district, residents had to -9-


1

drive several hours to reach reach the nearest hospital or medical medical center. Mr. Renzi obtained obtained

2

much needed funding for the Kayenta Health Center, serving the Navajo Nation.

3

Helen Bonnaha, a Former Kayenta Township Supervisor, writes that the community

4

had been trying to obtain obtain a hospital for more than 60 years. As a result of the funding

5

obtained by Mr. Renzi, the center was able to expand from offering only limited

6

services to providing important specialized services like x-rays, a pregnancy center,

7

day surgery, and a wellness wellness center. center. Ex. A-10, Letter Letter from Helen Bonnaha. Bonnaha. Mr. Renzi

8

also obtained funding for a new hospital on the San Carlos Apache reservation, which

9

would offer more specialized services and replace an existing facility that was over 50

10

year old, relieving residents who formerly had to travel two to three hours to see any

11

health specialist. specialist. Ex. A-5, Letter Letter from Kathy Kitcheyan. Kitcheyan. Mr. Renzi also also helped the

12

Morenci Healthcare Healthcare Center gain Federal status, so that it could better serve poor

13

residents in rural rural Arizona. Ex. A-18, Letter Letter from Fr. Rudy Rosales.

14

IV.

15

HELPING OTHERS AND PERSONAL GENEROSITY

Both personally and as a member of Congress, Mr. Renzi time and again has

16

lent a hand to those in in need. Ranging from small acts of kindness kindness to offering sustained

17

financial support and nurturing relationships, Mr. Renzi’s generosity has touched the

18

lives of many.

19

A.

20

Sean Minton, now twenty three years old, has known Mr. Renzi since he was

21

Sean Minton

introduced to him by Mr. Mr. Renzi’s sons at the age of six. Mr. Minton’s father tragically tragically

when Sean was just four. Sean writes, “Unlike “Unlike most kids in my position, 22 passed away when 23

I was still able to grow up with a strong father figure f igure who helped guide me through

24

life. That father was was Mr. Renzi…. Renzi…. Mr. Renzi cared cared for me, and and truly raised me me like

25

one of his own children.” children.” At Mr. Renzi’s invitation, invitation, Sean attended attended church with the

26

Renzi family every every Sunday. The two developed a close relationship, like any father

27

and son. Mr. Renzi helped instill instill in Sean a dedication dedication to faith, academics academics and athletics

28

that have become central to Mr. Minton’s life, and along with that guidance, provided - 10 -


1

him with food, housing, and financial support. As Mr. Minton Minton writes, “When “When I was

2

younger, the Renzis often fed me dinner, and there were times when Mr. Renzi took

3

me into his home…. Whether I needed shoes for wrestling or money for lunch at

4

school, I was always able to have it, it, thanks to Mr. Renzi.” Ex. A-1, Letter from Sean

5

Minton. Mr. Renzi’s sympathy sympathy for Mr. Minton’s loss and determination to make a

emblematic of the compassion and commitment commitment to helping 6 positive impact in his life is emblematic 7

others that Mr. Renzi has shown throughout his life.

8

B.

9

Phil Cancik was a close friend of Mr. Renzi’s, dating back to their time as

10

Phil Cancik

teammates on NAU’s NAU’s football team. Mr. Cancik went on on to a successful career in the

later fell into drug abuse and eventually eventually wound up in prison on drug-related drug-related 11 NFL, but later 12

charges. When others had lost track track of Mr. Cancik, Mr. Renzi took took it on himself to

13

hire a private investigator, and eventually learned of Mr. of Mr. Cancik’s incarceration. Mr.

14

Renzi visited Mr. Cancik in prison, and when he was released, Mr. Renzi gave him a

get back on his feet. When Mr. Cancik needed needed an advocate to 15 job and helped him get 16

speak on his behalf and help him obtain his contractor’s license, Mr. Renzi went to bat

17

for him, and his testimony helped convince an appeals board to grant Mr. M r. Cancik’s

18

application. To this day, Mr. Cancik credits the friendship and support that that Mr. Renzi

19

offered as the reason he was was able to turn his life around. around. Ex. A-2, Letter from Phil

20

Cancik.

21

C.

Fundraiser for Fallen Capitol Police Officers

22

Mr. Renzi learned of two Capitol Police Officers, John Gibson and Jacob

23

Chestnut, who had been killed in the line of duty while defending the United States

24

Capitol against an armed intruder. See WASHINGTON POST, “Officers Lost Their Lives

25

Saving Others,” July 25 1998, 1998, attached as Ex. E. E. Moved by their story, he took it it

26

upon himself to organize a charity touch football event between Members of Congress

27

and the Ca pitol Police, to raise money money for the two officers’ families. families. 152 CONG. R EC EC.

28

H1500 (Apr. 5, 2006) (statement of Rep. Shuster), attached as Ex. F; R OLL OLL CALL, - 11 -


1

“Members, Cops to recreate ‘The Longest Yard,’” Oct. 31, 2005, attached as Ex. G.

2

In its first year, the event raised $50,000 for the education and other needs n eeds of the

3

officers’ families, families, and has become become an annual tradition. Ex. A-12, Letter from Patty

4

Roe.

5

D.

6

One of Mr. Renzi’s employees at Patriot Insurance, Erika Hill, was diagnosed

7

Erika Hill

with cancer. cancer. Ms. Hill writes that that in addition to offering emotional emotional support, Mr. Renzi

assistance, and refused her offers to repay him. Ex. 8 provided her family with financial assistance, 9

A-15, Letter from Erika Hill.

10

E.

Support for a Deceased Friend’s Daughter

11

A former girlfriend girlfriend of Mr. Renzi’s, and mutual friend of Roseanna Lindley,

12

tragically passed away during an ocean diving incident, leaving behind a five year old

13

daughter. When Mr. Renzi learned learned of this tragedy, he sought out his his friend’s daughter

14

and her guardian, to make make sure that she would have money money to attend college. college. As Ms.

15

Lindley writes, Mr. Renzi did this “not wanting anything for himself, onl y to see the

16

child of his friend be successful.” Ex. A-6, Letter from Roseanna Lindley.

17

F.

Care for Constituents in Need

18

Sarah Jones, a former staffer for Mr. Renzi, tells the story of some constituents

19

who came to visit visit Mr. Renzi in his office in Washington, Washington, DC. The constituents had

20

lost their wallet wallet on their way to DC for a veterans event. Mr. Renzi “asked them how

21

much they needed, and arranged for them to receive r eceive double that from his own pocket.”

22

Ex. A-19, Letter from Sarah Jones.

23

G.

Donation of Property to the Catholic Church

24

Mr. Renzi has often given given generously of his money and property. property. When the

25

local Catholic Church was struggling to raise funds a new building, Mr. Renzi donated

26

space in his own home to the church so that its members would have a place to

27

worship. He later gave additional additional space, so that the church could open a thrift shop to to

28

raise funds for the new building. building. Ex. A-15, Letter from Erika Erika Hill. - 12 -


1

V.

HEALTH ISSUES

Dating back to 2000, Mr. Renzi has been suffering from various medical issues,

2 3

as detailed more fully in the Presentence Investigation Report. Presentence

4

Investigation Report for Richard G. Renzi (“PSR”) ¶ ¶ 73-75. Mr. Renzi’s medical

5

issues are further described in a letter submitted by b y his treating physician, Dr. William

6

Dabney, attached to this Memorandum and filed under seal. See Ex. I, Letter from Dr.

7

William Dabney (filed under seal). ARGUMENT

8 9

I.

THE SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE BUT ONE FACTOR AMONG MANY THAT THE COURT MUST CONSIDER.

10 11

In United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220, 226-27 (2005), the Supreme Court

12

freed sentencing courts from the rigid, formalistic framework that existed under the

13

Guidelines, replacing it with a system in which judges have discretion to consider the

14

Booker , sentencing relevant characteristics characteristics of the offense and the defendant. After Booker

15

courts are “obliged to ‘take account of’ [the Sentencing Guidelines] Guidelines] r ange ange along with

16

the sentencing goals Congress enumerated in the [Sentencing Reform Act] at 18

17

U.S.C. § 3553(a).” Cunningham v. California , 549 U.S. 270, 286 (2007) (quoting

sentencing courts must consider consider the 18 Booker , 543 U.S. at 259, 264). In other words, sentencing 19

Guidelines, but they are not bound by them. See United States v. Carty, 520 F.3d 984,

20

991-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Rather, R ather, they are but one of the statutory factors the

21

courts must consider. See id .

22 23

Here, Mr. Renzi agrees with the PSR Guidelines calculations in all but two ways, which relate to enhancements the PSR made 1) pursuant to USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

corruption counts; and 2) pursuant to USSG 24 based on the value involved in the public corruption 25

§2B1.1 based on the amount of the loss on the insurance counts.

26 27 28 - 13 -


1 2

There is No Basis For Any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 1 Offenses Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

3

Again, as Probation recognized, one of the things that makes this case so unique

4

A.

is the fact that Mr. Renzi was not going to profit from the insertion of the Sandlin

land exchange bill. Even the government accepts accepts that Mr. Renzi 5 property into any land 6

received nothing beyond the repayment of the pre-existing debt that Mr. Sandlin owed

7

to Mr. Renzi related related to the Kingman property. property. And it is also true that that Mr. Sandlin did

8

not need to sell the Sandlin Sandlin property to repay this this debt. Mr. Sandlin borrowed borrowed over

9

$900,000 from Mr. Ricketts in the fall of 2005, using only ¼ of the Kingman property

10

as collateral, which was more than what Mr. Sandlin needed to repay Mr. Renzi.

11

Further, Mr. Sandlin had additional properties that he could have sold or borrowed

12

against if necessary. necessary. Thus, there is simply no evidence evidence to suggest that Mr. Sandlin Sandlin

13

needed to sell the Sandlin property, or that Mr. Renzi somehow thought this was so, to

14

repay this debt.

15

The natural consequence of those facts is that the Guidelines do not impose any

16

enhanced penalty upon Mr. Renzi under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2), which provides for

17

increases in a defendant’s offense level based on the value involved in the offense.

18

The government argues to the contrary, but those efforts eff orts to dramatically increase Mr.

19

Renzi’s punishment are speculative and impermissible, and should be rejected.

20 21

1.

Legal Standards

As the Government concedes, the government has the burden of establishing

22

any of its proposed enhancements under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) by clear and convincing

23

evidence because of the disproportionate impact this section has on Mr. Renzi’s

24

sentence. Government Consolidated Response Response to the Objections (Dkt. (Dkt. 1305), at 3

25

(citing United States v. Jordan , 256 F.3d 922, 928-29 928-29 (9th Cir. 2001). That high

26

standard is particularly particularly appropriate here. The purpose of value-based enhancements enhancements is

27

to increase punishment only in circumstances where additional punishment is

28

warranted – warranted – that that is, where the Government has proven a loss to the victim or gain to - 14 -


1

the defendant. defendant. This principle was explained explained in United States v. Schneider , 930 F.2d

2

555, 559 (7th Cir. 1991), which explained that the Guidelines essentially start for

calculations with the assumption that that the victim lost nothing, nothing, 3 purposes of fraud loss calculations 4 but then enhance a sentence (or awards “bonus punishment points”) based on proven 5 6 7 8 9

losses: We add that of course the Schneiders will not go scot free merely because the government failed--failed utterly--to prove any loss to the victim of their f raud. The statutes under which they were convicted do not require a minimum loss to the victim… It is simply that the Guidelines Guidelines award bonus punishment points for different levels of proven loss beginning with $2,000. T he government did not earn a bonus in this case.

10 Id. at 559 (emphasis added). 11

Further underscoring the protections provided by the Guidelines, the

12

government is not permitted to meet its burden of proving value under §2C1.1 based

13

on speculation. See United States v. Frega , 179 F.3d 793, 812 (9th Cir. 1999); United

14

States v. Rousell , 705 F.3d 184, 201 (5th Cir. 2013); United States v. Ring , 811 F.2d

15

359, 380 (D.D.C. 2011).

16

2.

17 18

The Government Cannot Quantify Any Loss to the Aries Group Under the Second Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

The second prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) considers the value of the “benefit

19

received or to be received received in return for the payment.” payment.” The government argues that the

20

Court should adopt a $4.6 million figure, reflecting the amount that the Aries Group

Sandlin property. This is a guess. The government has no idea, idea, nor does 21 paid for the Sandlin 22

anyone else, whether or how much the Aries Group might have profited if the Aries

23

Bill had passed out of Mr. Mr. Renzi’s committee. It is far from clear that the Aries Group

24

would have turned any profit at all, let alone the th e 100% rate of return the government

25

seeks. It matters not whether this analysis is done now or back back in 2005 -- there are

26

simply too many unknown variables (e.g., would the Aries Bill actually pass, would

27

the Aries Group be able to develop the property profitably in light of the real estate

28

market, etc.). - 15 -


The government’s argument rests on the assumption that th at the Aries Group

1 2

would make millions millions of dollars because it was was investing millions of dollars. dollars. This is

3

obviously flawed – flawed – the the size of the investment has no bearing as to whether it actually

4

makes money. The government’s naked naked assertion that that $4.6 million is a “conservative

5

estimate” is simply another way of saying that it cannot quantify what rate of profit, let

6

alone the ultimate ultimate profit, the Aries Group Group might have enjoyed. That inability to

7

quantify any number dooms their argument.

8

3.

9

The Government Cannot Show that Either Mr. Renzi or Mr. Sandlin Gained Anything of Value Under the Third Prong of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2)

10

The third measure under USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) considers “the value of anything

11

obtained or to be obtained by a public official or others acting with a public official.”

12

As the Government concedes, Dkt. No. 1301 at 5, Ninth Circuit precedent dictates that

13

any valuation under this measure must be a “net” valuation.” See United States v.

14

White Eagle , 721 F.3d 1108, 1122 (9th Cir. 2013). This is a critical (albeit (albeit undeniable)

15

concession, because neither Mr. Sandlin nor Mr. Renzi received anything more than

16

what they gave up or were owed. Accordingly, neither neither man received anything anything of

17

value.

18

With respect to Mr. Sandlin, the unrebutted evidence at trial (which the

19

government does not contest) was that the Aries Group paid Mr. Sandlin less than the

20

fair market value of what the Sandlin Property was worth. See Dkt. No. 1303 at 4-6

21

(detailing the $5.2 million offer the Aries Group received for the Sandlin Property

22

within weeks of the May 2005 agreement to buy the land from Mr. Sandlin). White

23 Eagle and similar cases demonstrate that the proper way to determine the net valuation 24

of property is to assess the fair market value of the property at the time it is sold , not

25

some other time. See White Eagle , 721 F.3d at 1122; United States v. Bahel , 662 F.3d

26

610, 620, 646-47 (2d Cir. 2011); United States v. Ring , 811 F. Supp. 2d 359, 380

27

(D.D.C. 2011); United States v. Barranza , 655 F.3d 375, 385-86 (5th Cir. 2011). In

28

the context of commercial fraud, it is clear that defendants receive credit for “the for “the fair - 16 -


1

market value of the property returned” -- there is no reason to believe a different

operates here. See USSG §2B1.1, Comment 3(E). 2 principle operates 3

As for the valuation of any benefit to Mr. Renzi, as previously explained, see

4

Dkt. No. 1300 at 3-5, the only payments that Mr. Renzi received were in repayment of

5

a pre-existing debt owed owed him by Mr. Sandlin. Sandlin. Because Mr. Renzi Renzi would have received

payments regardless of Mr. Sandlin’s sale of his property to the Aries 6 both of those payments 7 8

Group, Mr. Renzi did not receive anything of net value as a result of that transaction. The key facts surrounding the the original debt were proven proven at trial. Mr. Sandlin’s

9

debt to Mr. Renzi originated in 2003, when Mr. Sandlin completed his buyout of Mr.

10

Renzi’s interest in the Kingman property. Mr. Sandlin did not pay the the entire purchase

time of that sale, and the evidence evidence established that this was essentially a 11 price at the time 12

handshake deal in which which Mr. Sandlin owed owed Mr. Renzi $800,000. Mr. Sandlin made

13

several payments on his debt in 2004 as anticipated.

14

In the summer of 2005, however, Mr. Sandlin entered into a promise to sell a

Kingman Property to Mike Anderson, Anderson, another developer. developer. Mr. Sandlin’s 15 portion of the Kingman 16

agreement triggered his obligation to pay the outstanding balance of his debt in full,

17

which was explained in the letter that Mr. Renzi arranged to be sent to Mr. Sandlin on

18

August 29, 2005 to call call the note. Gov’t Ex. 655. After Mr. Renzi Renzi called the note, Mr.

19

Sandlin paid the remaining balance with money that Mr. Sandlin borrowed from Mr.

20

Ricketts in September September 2005. Mr. Sandlin received received additional funds from the Aries Aries

21

Group in October 2005, which he kept in an escrow account so that he could purchase

22

the Sandlin Property back should it become available.

23

The government does not contest that Mr. Sandlin owed Mr. Renzi $733,000 $ 733,000

24

from the Kingman transaction, but argues that the money was still somehow so mehow tied to the

25

extortionate conduct. conduct. But this is immaterial for purposes of USSG §2C1.1(b)(2) §2C1.1(b)(2) – –

26

even if the money were tied to the crime, which it was not, Mr. Renzi did not gain any

27

extra benefit from being repaid money that he was already owed.

28 - 17 -


1

The government has no evidence that Mr. Sandlin was unable to repay Mr.

2

Renzi, let alone enough to meet the clear clear and convincing standard here. here. Mr. Sandlin

3

had assets worth many millions millions of dollars in 2005. He used a small portion of those

4

assets (1/4 of his interest in the Kingman Property) to borrow $966,000 from Mr.

5

Ricketts. He owned a series of additional additional properties free and and clear of any mortgage. mortgage.

6

There is simply no evidence that Mr. Sandlin was unable to pay his debt, or that Mr.

7

Renzi mistakenly believed that he would.

8

The government fares no better on its claim that Mr. Renzi got his money from

9

Mr. Sandlin sooner than than it was otherwise due. due. Dkt. No. 1305 at 10. The government’s

10

arguments in this regard regard rely on a series of fundamentally flawed assumptions. As an

11

initial matter, the government cannot substantiate its basic premise, namely that Mr.

12

Renzi received money money early. The evidence at trial showed showed that the entire note became

13

due after Mr. Sandlin entered into his agreement to sell part of the Kingman

14

development to Mr. Mr. Anderson. Anderson. Mr. Renzi’s letter to Mr. Sandlin states this directly,

15

and it makes sense that Mr. Renzi would have required Mr. Sandlin to pay the debt

16

once Mr. Sandlin started selling portions of the Kingman development (which

17

effectively functioned functioned as the collateral collateral on the deal). Further, the t he timing of Mr. Renzi’s

18

demand letter, which closely follows the agreement between Mr. Sandlin and Mr.

19

Anderson, lends further credence to its authenticity.

20

The government insists that the demand letter is fraudulent, but does not have

21

the requisite clear and convincing evidence to support this claim. The government’s

22

argument rests on the notion that the draft promissory note that Ray Hanna prepared in

23

May 2004 did not include include any such trigger language. language. But that argument ignores the

24

circumstances under under which that note was was made. The note was arranged by a lawyer, lawyer,

25

Mr. Hanna, who did not understand the background of the deal or its terms, prepared

26

off of a standard form, and done done without Mr. Renzi’s Renzi’s input. Critically, Mr. Renzi’s Renzi’s

27

own handwritten notes on the draft, which were made in 2004, well before any of the

28

events at issue here, prove that the note was incomplete and did not include terms - 18 -


1

about the security that Mr. Sandlin had promised. See Renzi Ex. 2742, attached as Ex.

2

H. Thus, the draft promissory note does does not have all the terms terms of the agreement

Renzi and Mr. Sandlin, and and the government cannot credibly assert that 3 between Mr. Renzi 4 5

the absence of any particular term in the draft note is determinative. Further, the government’ government’s analysis is also clouded by a series of fundamental

6

flaws. First, the government incorrectly incorrectly assumes that the note note did not become due in in

7

August 2005, and thus includes damages for periods that extend into 2007, which

8

dramatically increases their figures. 1 Second, the government falsely inflates its

9

analysis by assuming that Mr. Renzi would not earn 5% interest on the funds that Mr.

10

Sandlin owed him if the loan were not repaid, even though this was the rate called for

11

in the note and the the rate of interest that Mr. Mr. Sandlin actually paid. paid. Any advantage to

12

Mr. Renzi for receiving his money back early has to account for the fact that he would

13

earn 5% by doing nothing. Finally, the government government inflates its analysis by picking

14

rates that have no logical relationship to what Mr. Renzi might actually have done with

15

the money. For example, there is no reason to think that the rate rate of interest that Mr.

16

Sandlin was willing to pay to Mr. Ricketts was somehow indicative of Mr. Renzi’s

17

view of the time time value of money. Thus, the government simply cannot cannot support the

18

notion that Mr. Renzi somehow benefitted additionally from the fact that Mr. Sandlin

19

repaid his loan in 2005.

20

B.

21 22

There is No Basis For Any Increase in Offense Level for the Group 2 Offenses (Insurance) Based On the Value Involved in the Offense Under §2B1.1.

The PSR suggests that the Court apply a 14-level enhancement under §2B1.1

23

on the basis of an erroneous conclusion that Mr. Renzi unlawfully used between

24

$400,000 and $1 million to fund his his political campaign. PSR ¶ 47. As explained in

25

Mr. Renzi’s previous filing, Dkt. No. 1300 at 6-7, the jury rejected the government’s

26 1

27 28

Removing the unwarranted time from the government’s calculations reduces the loss from $104,768.50 to $6,419.75 in Exhibit A, and from $85,030.55 to $4,324.82 in Exhibit B. - 19 -


1

claim that Mr. Renzi used corporate money to fund his campaign, acquitting Mr. Renzi

2

of Racketeering Act 1A, the only allegation that that actually relates to the source of

3

funds for the campaign contributions.2 This conclusion followed the evidence at trial,

4

through both Robert Watkins and the government’s own witnesses, that Mr. Renzi

5

used personal money to fund his campaign.

6

Further, even if the government could show that some money was

7

misappropriated, it has not established that all $422,000 that Mr. Renzi withdrew came

8

from misappropriated funds. This is impossible given the the funds that Mr. Renzi

9

unquestionably put into into Renzi & Company. Thus, the government cannot sustain its

Mr. Renzi obtained over $400,000 $400,000 in illicit gain here. here. 10 burden of showing that Mr. 11

Similarly, there there is no loss here. The undisputed evidence shows that none of

12

Renzi & Company’s clients was ever denied payment for a proper claim as a result of

13

the dispute between NIF and Renzi & Company, and that NIF was paid all monies due

14

to it in November 2002 — just days after NIF and Renzi Renzi & Company resolved their their

15

coverage dispute. Thus, there was neither any gain or loss associated with this this

16

offense, and accordingly no basis for a level enhancement under §2B1.1.

17

II. MR. RENZI’S HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF HIS OFFENSE WARRANT A NON-GUIDELINES SENTENCE

18 19

After evaluating the Sentencing Guidelines and calculating a potentially

20

applicable Guidelines Guidelines range, the Court must consider the remaining § 3553(a) factors

21

to “‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,’” to comply with the

22 purposes set forth by Congress. Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 89 (2007) 23

(quoting § 3553(a)). Sentencing courts now have an obligation to consider factors that

24

were discouraged under the pre- Booker mandatory Guidelines regime, such as history

25 26

2

The government argues that the jury’s findings that Mr. Renzi committed other racketeering predicate acts suggests that Mr. Renzi misappropriated insurance 27 premiums, but each each of the the predicate acts cited in the Government’s brief, Dkt. No. 28 1305, at 12, pertains to the false statements to regulators. - 20 -


1

and characteristics of a defendant, the nature of the offense, the need for deterrence,

2

the likelihood of recidivism, and the public’s need for protection, because they are

3

relevant in determining the “history and characteristics of the defendant” under §

4

3553(a)(1). E.g., id. at 93. In this case, case, Mr. Renzi’s Renzi’s history history and characteristics as well

5

as the nature of his offense strongly favor a lenient non-Guidelines sentence.

6 7

A.

Mr. Renzi’s Personal History and Characteristics Ch aracteristics Suggest a BelowGuidelines Sentence

8

Throughout his life, Mr. Renzi has been defined by his commitments to faith,

9

family, charity, charity, and public service. With limited financial financial resources and a large large and

10

ever-growing family, family, Mr. Renzi worked hard hard to provide for those he loved. After he

11

achieved financial success, Mr. Renzi dedicated his life to public service and to

12

advancing the pro-life pro-life movement he was was so passionate about. Mr. Renzi’s active role role

13

in his community, his commitment to improving the lives of others, public service and

14

family ties provide strong support for a below-Guidelines sentence. See United States

15

v. Tomko, 562 F.3d 558, 571 (3d Cir. 2009) (en banc) (affirming probationary sentence

16

where sentencing court properly considered the defendant’s negligible criminal

17

history, employment record, community ties, and charitable works.)

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Mr. Renzi’s Good Works and Public Service

Mr. Renzi’s commitment to helping others is an important factor that favors f avors a lenient, below-Guidelines sentence: [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. balance. This elementary principle principle of weighing the good with the bad, which is basic to all the great religions, moral philosophies, and systems of justice, 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 506, 513-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).

As set out above, Mr. Renzi has made a tremendous difference for good in the lives of others. As a Member of Congress, Mr. Renzi Renzi worked to expand education, education, - 21 -


1

housing, and healthcare in communities that were sorely lacking these basic human

2

rights. Thanks to Mr. Renzi’s efforts, constituents who had previously felt ignored by

3

their government finally felt that they had a champion for their interests. Prior to his

4

election, as an activist in the pro-life movement, Mr. Renzi used his h is expertise in the

5

insurance industry to create an innovative insurance program that Mr. Glessner,

6

President of NIFLA, described as essential to the continued operation of the crisis

centers on their present scale. 7 pregnancy centers 8 9

There remains much much good work for Mr. Renzi to do. Many of those who wrote letters3 on Mr. Renzi’s behalf stress the important work he has done in their

10

communities and that he can continue to help. help. We urge the Court to exercise exercise its

11

discretion under Booker Booker to extend leniency to Mr. Renzi, in light of his history of good

12

works and ability to continue to make a positive pos itive impact in the lives of others. 2.

13 14

Mr. Renzi’s Family Ties

One of the most common factors relied upon by sentencing courts as warranting

15

a below-Guidelines sentence is the strength of a defendant’s family ties. See United

16

States v. Whitehead , 532 F.3d 991, 992-93 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (affirming

17

sentence of probation, 1,000 hours of community service, and restitution in lieu of 41-

18

51 months in prison in part because the defendant’s eight-year-old eight-year-old daughter depended

19

on him); United States v. Nellum , No. 2:04-CR-30-PS, 2005 WL 300073, at *4 (N.D.

20

Ind. Feb. 3, 2005) (sentencing defendant to a lower non-Guidelines sentence in part

21

due to his good relationship with his children).

22

Mr. Renzi’s family ties ties are deep and strong. Mr. Renzi’s several siblings siblings have

23

all written letters describing their relationships with him, and the role he pla yed as

24

father figure to them when they were younger and dealing with their mother’s tragic

25

and terminal illness. illness. Mr. Renzi’s wife and and oldest son have also written written letters, and the

26

latter was joined by Mr. Renzi’s other eleven children, all of whom would suffer

27 28

3

In addition to those letters cited herein (attached at Exhibit A), other letters submitted on Mr. Renzi’s behalf are attached at Exhibit Exhib it B. - 22 -


1

greatly if Mr. Renzi Renzi were sentenced to prison for an extended period. In addition,

2

several of Mr. Renzi’s children are still living at home, ho me, and Mr. Renzi’s assistance assista nce

3

with the family business is important to their financial financial support. As noted in Ron

4

Renzi’s letter, Mr . Renzi also has grandchildren, who risk not having a relationship

5

with their grandfather if he is given a lengthy prison sentence.

6

B.

7

Mr. Renzi recognizes that he stands convicted of felonies relating to his

8

involvement in land exchange legislation and of making false statements to insurance

9

regulators. These are are serious offenses, but Mr. Renzi’s conduct differs in important

10

The Nature and Seriousness of Mr. Renzi’s Offenses

ways from the typical typical public corruption and fraud offenses. offenses. Those differences should

the sentence that is imposed on Mr. Mr. Renzi. 11 be recognized in the 12 13

1.

The Public Corruption Offenses

As the Probation Officer observed, “the ‘heartland’ public corruption case

14

typically involves an obvious kickback, bribe payment or other illegal gain of some

15

sort. However, that does not appear to have happened happened in this matter.” PSR ¶ 108.

16

Here, Mr. Renzi stands convicted even though: 1) the inclusion of the Sandlin Sandlin

17

Property in either the Aries or the Resolution Copper bill would have been in the

and 2) Mr. Renzi was not going to benefit from the inclusion of the 18 public interest; and 19

Sandlin Property beyond beyond the repayment of a pre-existing debt. In essence, Mr. Renzi’s

20

acts were the equivalent of a failure to disclose a conflict of interest.

21

The evidence at trial overwhelmingly established that the inclusion of the

22

Sandlin property in the land exchange was in the public interest because retiring the

23

water usage on the property would be so helpful for the environment, the military, and

24

the Sierra Sierra Vista community. The government’s stipulation laid laid out the key facts: 1)

25

For t Huachuca’s mission was “essential to the national security of the United States,”

26

and 2) “r etiring etiring the water usage on the Sandlin property was thus in the public interest

27

and of value to Fort Huachuca.” Huachuca.” Dkt. No. 1214.

28 - 23 -


1

But the evidence was not limited to the stipulation. stipulation. The record is replete with

2

testimony regarding the value of the Sandlin Property to helping the water problems

3

that plagued Fort Huachuca Huachuca and Sierra Vista. For example, Holly Holly Richter from The

(“TNC”), testified about the Sandlin Property’s P roperty’s dramatic impact 4 Nature Conservancy (“TNC”), 5

on water usage in the area, and she and other TNC witnesses testified about that

6

group’s longstanding efforts to retire retire the water usage on the property. Indeed, TNC

7

documents showed that the group was interested in working with Mr. Renzi with

8

respect to the Sandlin property well before the emergence of the Resolution Resol ution Copper

9

and Aries land exchanges. exchanges. Matt Walsh and Col. Jonathan Jonathan Hunter testified about about the

10

importance importance of the Fort’s operations and the serious threat posed by conservation issues

11

to the continuing viability of its operations operations in the face of the BRAC. Similarly, Pat

12

Call and Col. Thomas Finnegan testified about the importance of the Fort to Sierra

13

Vista and the community’s concern about the water use on the Sandlin Property.

14

The evidence of the significance of the Sandlin Property was matched by the

15

evidence that showed Mr. Renzi’s sincere desire to help Fort Huachuca and the Sierra

16

Vista community. community. Every former Renzi staffer staffer and citizen who testified testified about Mr.

17

Renzi’s involvement with Fort Huachuca Huac huca (e.g., Karen Lynch, Kevin Messner, Matt

18

Walsh, Col. Hunter, Pat Call, Col. Finnegan and even Joanne Keene) testified of Mr.

19

Renzi’s longstanding efforts to understand the Fort’s mission and to help protect it, it,

20

efforts that dated back to well before the land exchange e xchange legislation was ever

21

contemplated. The government did not challenge the sincerity of this testimony, nor

22

could it.

23

Mr. Renzi’s motivations, of course, are a key component of the charges against agains t

24

him. Again, Mr. Renzi recognizes recognizes the jury verdict, but but the limitations on that that verdict

25

must be recognized recognized as well. The law prohibits a mixed mixed motive defense, and the the Court

26

ensured that the jury jury was instructed accordingly. As a result, all that can be taken from

27

the jury’s verdict is that the jury concluded that at least some part of Mr. Renzi’s intent

28

was improper. But there can be little question here that Mr. Renzi Renzi was also driven by - 24 -


1

a pure belief in the wisdom of including the Sandlin Property in any land exchange

2

deal, and that his actions to try tr y to make that happen were good public policy.

3

Thus, this Court should recognize, as Probation did, that Mr. Renzi’s conduct

4

falls far outside the heartland of public corruption cases, and that he should be treated

5

accordingly.

6

2.

The Insurance Offenses

7

The insurance offenses revolve around the representations that Renzi &

8

Company made to regulators investigating a dispute between Renzi & Company and

9

Safeco Insurance Insurance Company. This dispute was real. Safeco refused claims based on

10

the crisis pregnancy centers’ provision of spiritual counseling— a crucial aspect of the

11

centers’ insurance coverage. But ultimately, the dispute was resolved, and Safeco (and

retroactive coverage, and 12 NIF) received their money, the pregnancy centers received retroactive 13

every single single claim made was paid. In short, there there was no loss here. In light of the

14

significant penalties facing Mr. Renzi from the public corruption cases, the absence of

15

harm on the insurance counts is significant. s ignificant.

16

Further, the weight the Court puts on these counts should be balanced by the

17

significant efforts Mr. Renzi Renzi made on behalf of his clients. clients. As relayed by Mr.

18

Glessner, it was due to Mr. Renzi’s efforts eff orts that the pregnancy centers were able to

19

receive appropriate appropriate insurance at all. For example, Mr. Renzi did ultimately force

20

Safeco to change change its policies to cover spiritual spiritual counseling. Even more significantly,

21

Mr. Renzi also developed Spirit Mountain, which allowed the pregnancy centers to

22

essentially insure themselves from the threat that Safeco (or any other insurer) would

23

decide that it was was politically expedient expedient to cancel or restrict restrict coverage. As was

24

demonstrated at trial, Mr. Renzi put at risk much of his own personal fortune to build

25

Spirit Mountain (e.g., by pledging his house and hundreds of thousands of his own

26

money in support of the business), but allowed the members of the organization to

27

reap much of the reward of his hard work (e.g., by passing back dividends to the

28

members of the RRG rather than seeking to collect the money as profits). - 25 -


1

C.

Mr. Renzi’s Conviction, the Proposed Sentence, and His Public Downfall Would Promote Respect for the Law and Effectively Deter Others

2

Sentencing courts courts must consider general deterrence. deterrence. However, a lengthy term term

3 4

of incarceration is is not the only way to deter deter others. Courts recognize that the collateral

5

consequences of convictions, such as reputational losses and litigation, can accomplish

6

that result.

7

(concluding that reputational losses and collateral litigation against a defendant

8

sufficed to deter others); United States v. Edwards , 595 F.3d 1004, 1019 (9th Cir.

9

2010) (district court appropriately concluded that probation and restitution provided an

See, e.g. , United States v. Anderson , 533 F.3d 623, 633 (8th Cir. 2008)

10

adequate measure of general deterrence even though Guidelines suggested 27-33

11

months imprisonment). Here, Mr. Renzi’s public downfall and his exit from Congress also serve as

12

deterrents. From the moment of his indictment, indictment, Mr. R enzi’s enzi’s career in 13 powerful deterrents. 14

Congress was effectively marginalized, and he left office at the start of the 2009 term.

15

Since that time, he has not only been out of public office, but as his family recounts,

16

Mr. Renzi has lived in isolation, removed from the community in which he was once

17

so engaged. Ex. A-7, Letter from Roberta Roberta Renzi; Ex. A-4, Letter Letter from Ron Renzi.

18

Living these past seven years in isolation with his life on hold while waiting for the

itself been a punishment that that provides an additional measure 19 process to conclude has itself 20

of deterrence. In addition, the toll on Mr. Renzi’s family has been devastating, and would

21 22

deter anyone from engaging in criminal conduct. conduct. Ron Renzi, Mr. Renzi’s Renzi’s oldest son,

23

writes:

24 25 26 27 28

for my younger siblings, some of them as young as 7 years old when this [the proceedings against Mr. Renzi] first happened, it has been particularly difficult. difficult. They were too young young to understand why it suddenly seemed like everyone hated their daddy. daddy. They didn’t understand why it seemed like the community had turned against us. They experience constant ridicule and bullying bullying at school. I remember on several occasions while coaching my younger brothers, people actually booed them them at athletic events events for no reason at all…. I watched over again as parents and coaches would try tr y to ban my dad from coming - 26 -


1 2 3 4

to events to cheer on his his own kids…. I saw my 12 year old sister come come home crying because a teacher singled her out in class and called her daddy a ‘criminal’ in front of fellow classmates. Ex. A-4, Letter from Ron Renzi. Mr. Renzi’s experience watching the effect of his conduct on his family is perhaps the most painful punishment that he could incur.

5 6 7

D.

A Lengthy Prison Sentence Is Not Needed to Protect the Public Because There is No Risk of Recidivism

8

Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(C), sentencing courts must also consider the need

9

to “protect the public from further crimes crimes of the defendant.” Here, Mr. Renzi’s chance

10

of recidivism is zero, and thus a lengthy sentence of imprisonment is not needed to

public. Mr. Renzi’s age at the time of sentencing, sentencing, lack of a criminal 11 protect the public. 12 13

history, and post-offense conduct all support a below-Guidelines below-Guidelines sentence. Mr. Renzi will be 55 years old at the time time of his sentencing. A below-

14

Guidelines sentence is appropriate in the case of older offenders off enders because the

15

Sentencing Guidelines Guidelines do not take into account the fact that defendants over the age of

16

forty “exhibit markedly lower rates of recidivism in comparison to younger

17

defendants.” United States v. Carmona-Rodriguez , No. 04-cr-667(RWS), 2005 WL

18

840464, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2005); see also Simon v. United States, 361 F. Supp.

19

2d 35, 48 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (sentencing 43-year old defendant to lower non-Guidelines

20

sentence because of the Guidelines failure to account for decreased recidivism rates

21

among older defendants).

22

After he was indicted, indicted, Mr. Renzi did not seek re-election re-election to Congress. Since

23

that time, he has spent time with his family, and has helped his wife Roberta to

24

manage the family business, providing guidance and consultation regarding insurance

25

matters. Ex. A-7, Letter Letter from Roberta Renzi. Renzi. This factor also supports a below-

26

Guidelines sentence. See United States v. Whitehead , 532 F.3d 991, 992 (9th Cir.

27

2008) (affirming probationary sentence based in part in part on defendant’s post-offense post-offense

28

conduct, including working to build a business and living honorably). - 27 -


1

E.

2

A Below-Guidelines Sentence Would Help to Avoid Disparities With Sentences Given to Defendants for Similar Offenses

3

The Sentencing Reform Act dir ects ects courts to consider the need to “avoid

4

unwarranted sentence sentence disparities among defendants defendants with similar records.” 18 U.S.C. §

5

3553(a)(6). We have reviewed reviewed the sentences of federal congressmen congressmen sentenced on

embezzlement charges in recent years, years, and provide a sampling of the most most 6 bribery or embezzlement 7

significant cases cases below. That review demonstrates that Mr. Renzi’s conduct is readily

8

distinguishable from other Members of Congress who have been sentenced for public

9

corruption offenses because 1) his actions were in furtherance of the public good; and

10

2) he was not going to obtain obtain any financial advantage advantage for what he sought. In contrast,

11

the cases below dealt with situations where the Members’ conduct was aimed wholly

12

at personal enrichment, and none of the legislators were motivated by b y the public

13

interest. Mr. Renzi’s conduct stands in contrast contrast to these heartland public public corruption

14

cases, and his sentence should reflect that difference:

15



16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23



24 25 26 27 28



Congressman Bob Ney received over $170,000 worth of bribes plus numerous other benefits worth undisclosed sums, during a course of conduct that spanned from 2000-2003 2000-2003 in connection connection with the Abramoff scandal. Congressman Ney’s benefits included all-expenses-paid all-expenses-paid vacations, tickets tickets to luxury suites at sporting events, campaign contributions contributions and gambling stipends. In return, Ney performed numerous official actions to benefit Abramoff’s Abramoff’s clients, including supporting or opposing numerous pieces of legislation at Abramoff’s and his associate’s request, inserting language into the Congressional Congressional Record, inserting amendments into legislation, supporting a license application for one of Abramoff’s clients to obtain a multi-million multi -million dollar contract, and contacting members of the Executive branch in an effort to influence their decisions at the request of Abramoff. Abramoff. He received received a sentence of 30 months. See Factual Proffer, Plea Agreement, United States v. Ney , No. 1:06-cr-00272-ESH (D.D.C. Oct. 13, 2006), attached as Ex. C-1; Judgment, United States v. Ney , No. 1:06cr-00272-ESH (D.D.C. Jan. 23, 2007), attached as Ex. C-2. Congressman Dan Rostenkowski, who stole more than $640,000 from the Government in a series of schemes involving kickbacks from fake f ake employees and embezzlement of House post office funds, received a sentenced of seventeen months. See LOS A NGELES TIMES, “Rostenkowski Pleads Guilty, Gets Prison,” April 10, 1996, attached as Ex. C-3. Congressman Joseph Kolter, who embezzled more than $44,000 from the U.S. Government during the House post office scandal, received a sentence of 6 months. See N.Y. TIMES, “Ex“Ex-Congressman Gets 6 Months in Prison,” Aug. 1, 1996, attached as Ex. C-4; N.Y. TIMES, “Ex-Lawmaker “Ex-Lawmaker Indicted in Post Office Scandal,” Oct. 19, 1994, attached as Ex. C-5. - 28 -


1

The defendants whose conduct was closest (although still worse) to Mr. Renzi’s

2

received sentences at or below the recommendation made by the Probation Officer

3

here. And importantly, defendants defendants who have received significantly significantly higher sentences sentences

4

were engaged in far more egregious conduct than Mr. Renzi. 4 As a result, this review

5

supports the notion that Mr. Renzi’s sentence should be lower than what was proposed

Officer. 6 by the Probation Officer. CONCLUSION

7 8 9

Mr. Renzi’s outstanding record of good works, his public service, and close family ties all argue for leniency. His age, lack of criminal criminal history, and departure from

effectively foreclose any chance chance of recidivism. His fall from grace and 10 public office effectively 11

the devastating impact of his conduct on both himself and his family have cost him

12

and his family dearly, and already served to punish him severely while deterring

13

others. The 33-month term of imprisonment imprisonment proposed by the Probation Probation Officer

14

significantly overstates overstates the just punishment for Mr. Mr. Renzi’s crimes. As a result, Mr.

15

Renzi will ask that the Court impose a sentence se ntence with a term of imprisonment

16

significantly below below that recommendation. recommendation. Such a sentence would would be sufficient, but not

17

greater than necessary, to serve the purposes of sentencing.

18 19

DATED this 22 nd day of October, 2013. Respectfully submitted,

20 21 4

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Congressman William Jefferson received $478,000 in actual bribes in return for his use of his office to attempt to corruptly broker various business bus iness ventures in several African nations, but plotted a scheme that he expected would earn him sh ares in a Nigerian telecommunications joint venture worth $172 million. See Gov’t Sentencing Memorandum, United States v. Jefferson , No. 1:07-cr-00209-TSE, at 3-4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 6, 2009), attached as Ex. C-6. Mr. Jefferson used his position position to exert influence on dozens of U.S. and foreign government officials, including a conspiracy to bribe Nigeria’s sitting Vice President. Id . at 5-7. Mr. Jefferson was was sentenced sentenced to 156 months in prison, but even this sentence was dramatically less than the Guidelines range of 262-327 months. See Judgment, United States v. Jefferson , No. 1:07-cr00209-TSE, at 3-4 (E.D. Va. Nov. 13, 2009), attached as Ex. C-7. - 29 -


1 2 3 4

/s/ Christopher S. Niewoehner Christopher Niewoehner ( Pro Hac Vice) STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 429-3000

5

and

6

Kelly B. Kramer ( Pro Hac Vice) Joseph P. Minta ( Pro Hac Vice) MAYER BROWN LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 263-3000

7 8 9 10

Attorneys for Defendant Richard Richard G. Renzi

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 30 -


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1 2

I hereby certify that on October 22, 2013, a true and correct copy of the

3

foregoing pleading was electronically transmitted to the Clerk’s Clerk’s Office using the

4

CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to all

5

counsel of record.

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

By: /s/ Christopher S. Niewoehner

Rick Renzi sentencing memorandum

Recommend Documents