World Surveillance Group Inc (fka WSGI)

[cygnus_1]

Thanks Coastie!!!
It appears the government is not happy with Huff's level of cooperation:

TIMOTHY HUFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT

In a relatively minor securities fraud case for a first-time non-violent offender, the probation office has recommended 34 levels of enhancements, resulting in a total offense level of 40 and a guideline range of 292-365 months. PSI:¶120. The ultimate guideline range is the maximum sentence authorized by law – 60 months. PSI:¶120. A number of the probation office’s calculations are incorrect and we note those objections in brief form here. We will file a more detailed memorandum in support of the following objections before the sentencing.

• Loss and Number of Victims, paragraphs 55-56 and underlying factual paragraphs. The probation office has listed every investor that has lost more than $1,000 between 2002-2004, even day-traders who had losses unrelated to the fraud in this case. We will demonstrate that the government’s methodology in calculating loss grossly overstates the actual loss and number of victims in this case.

• Role in the offense, paragraph 60 and underlying factual paragraphs. Mr. Huff was not the leader/organizer of this conspiracy; there were not five or more criminal participants; and it was not otherwise extensive. He did not manage or direct the activities of Thomas Jimenez or Mitchell Siegel.

• Obstruction of Justice, paragraph 61 and underlying factual paragraphs. This is an enormous stretch. Mr. Huff did not obstruct justice during his 2008 debriefing by initially saying that he was not guilty. He did not provide a “materially false statement” and did not “significantly obstruct[] or impede[] the official investigation” as required by 3C1.1

• Acceptance of Responsibility, paragraph 64 and underlying factual paragraphs. Mr. Huff is entitled to an acceptance reduction off of the 60-month statutory maximum sentence. See United States v. Rodriguez, 64 F.3d 638 (11th Cir. 1995).

• Tax Loss, paragraph 46 and underlying factual paragraphs. The government has overstated the tax loss in this case. Our experts are currently reviewing the government’s calculations, which were just provided to us last week.

• Double counting with Role and Securities Enhancement under 2B1.1(b)(17)(A)(I). If the Court disagrees with the role objection above, then the Court should not impose the Securities Enhancement which applies to defendants in securities’ cases where “the defendant was an officer or a director of a publicly traded company” as it would constitute double counting.

As noted above, we will be filing a detailed memorandum outlining the legal and factual reasons for these objections. In addition, in case the guidelines still exceed 60 months, we will be filing a memorandum explaining the reasons this Court should issue a downward variance under the 60 months. Those reasons include, among other things:

• Mr. Huff’s mental condition (Autism). The defense will be calling an expert (Dr. Thomas Bonner) to testify on this issue at sentencing.

• Mr. Huff’s family circumstances. Three of his five children (two of which are minors) have been diagnosed with autism.

• The need for unwarranted sentencing disparity. The starting point for this Court’s consideration is the more culpable co-defendant Tom Jimenez, who was sentenced to 36 months.

• Mr. Huff’s low likelihood of recidivism.

• Mr. Huff’s strong history of employment and his current employment.

• The cumulative impact of the enhancements. See 2B1.1, app. n. 19(c); see also United States v. Adelson, 441 F. Supp, 2d 506 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (explaining that the “piling on of points” and “cumulative effect of all the enhancements” for someone in the defendant’s position makes no sense); United States v. Parris, 573 F. Supp. 2d 744 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (finding that the guidelines place undue weight on the amount of loss, and other enhancements in securities fraud “have so run amok that they are patently absurd on their face”); United States v. Lauersen, 362 F.3d 160 (2d Cir. 2004).