Morales Defense Memo

8/10/2019 Morales Defense Memo

1/27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs.

HECTOR MORALES

:

:

:

CASE NUMBER 3:12 CR 164 (JBA)

DECEMBER 29, 2014

DEFENDANTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

On July 19, 2012 the defendant, Hector Morales, was arrested and charged by way of

Indictment with Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess with Intent to Distribute Narcotics;

Witness Tampering & Aiding and Abetting; Conspiracy to Tamper with Witnesses and

Destruction and Concealment of Evidence. On January 8, 2013, a Grand Jury returned a

Second Superseding Indictment against the defendant alleging the former charges, but also

adding three (3) counts of Accessory After the Fact to Arson Resulting in Death. Mr.

Morales elected to be tried by a jury on all of these charges. On April 18, 2013, following a

three week trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. Despite the jurys verdict

the defendant has steadfastly maintained his innocence to these charges. His position has

been clear since the commencement of the Governments investigation of this case; 1) he

never assisted his son in any way with his flight from the arson fire; 2) he disputes the

allegation that he conspired with his son to distribute narcotics; and 3) he maintains that he

never tampered with witnesses or painted his van to conceal evidence from law enforcement

agents.

In spite of Mr. Morales firm belief that the jury got it wrong, he understands that it is

the Courts duty to sentence him in accordance with the jurys verdict. That being said, Mr.

Morales respectfully submits this memorandum as an aid to the Court and in support of his

request for a variance or non-Guideline sentence. In Part I of this memorandum, Mr.

1

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 1 of 27


2/27

Morales challenges the Guideline calculations which are set forth in the PSR by the U.S.

Probation Department. (SeePSR at 45-73). Prior to sentencing, Mr. Morales raised

various objections to the Guideline calculations as he believes they are in error, which

ultimately affects his advisory Guideline range.

In Part II, Mr. Morales argues that the Guidelines range as proposed by Probation is

unduly harsh and is not necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing as outlined in 18

U.S.C. 3553(a). Moreover, it does not adequately take into account his positive history and

individual characteristics. Mr. Morales request for a non-Guideline sentence and/or

variance is firmly rooted in the letter and spirit of the Guidelines, in that a sentence should be

sufficient, but not greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of sentencing. SeeU.S.C.

3553(a).

PART I SENTENCING GUIDELINES

As stated, supra, Hector Morales was found guilty on all counts of the Second

Superseding Indictment following a lengthy jury trial. Based on the verdict, a Presentence

Report was prepared by the U.S. Probation Department on November 24, 2014 which set

forth the offense level computation and Guideline provisions in the defendants case. See

45-73. The Probation Department calculated Mr. Morales advisory Guideline range to be

168-210 months confinement. Id. at 110.

On or about December 8th and 9th of 2014, Mr. Morales submitted several objections

to the Guideline calculations and proposed an alternative analysis of what the advisory

Guideline calculation should be in his case. Specifically, Mr. Morales argues that all of the

victims of the arson should be grouped together as opposed to three separate grouping

categories. Additionally, he asserts that a two-level upward adjustment for Obstruction of

Justice is not warranted in this case notwithstanding that he was convicted of Tampering with

2



3/27

Witnesses and Destruction and Concealment of Evidence, which form the basis of the

obstruction increase. Without these two adjustments, the defendant contends his total offense

level would be 30 instead of 35. With a criminal history category of I, his resulting advisory

Guideline range would be lowered to 97-121 months.

Defendants Calculation:

A. Grouping Issue

The main purpose of grouping is to limit the significance of the formal charging

decision and to prevent multiple punishment for substantially identical offense conduct.

U.S.S.G. Ch.3, Part D, introductory commentary. Section 3D1.2 of the sentencing

guidelines provides that in multi-count indictments, [a]ll counts involving substantially the

same harm shall be grouped together into a single group. However, the guideline drafters

explained that [a] primary consideration when determining whether to group particular

conduct is whether the offenses involve different victims. U.S.S.G. 3D1.2 Application

Note 8; see alsoUnited States v Vasco, 564 F.3d 12, 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (Crimes involving

multiple victims, even if the offense arose out of a single event, are grouped separately);

United States v Hernandez Coplin, 24 F.3d 312, 319 n. 7 (1st Cir. 1994) (The grouping

guidelines recognize the relationship between an appropriate sentence and the types and

numbers of victims). Presumably, the rationale behind the Sentencing Commissions

creation to separate grouping categories based on individual victims is to expose the actual

perpetrator of the offense to a greater total offense level, which in turn leads to a more

significant sentence. This logic appears well grounded on the principle that an actual

offender needs to be punished and held accountable for his actions.

3



4/27

The PSR in this case creates three (3) distinct groups for purposes of calculating Mr.

Morales Guidelines; one group is assigned for each victim who died as a result of the arson

offense. Arguably, the probation department relies on Application Note 8 of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2

to reach the conclusion of establishing three distinct Groups. The defendant would agree with

this analysis as it pertains to Hector Natal, as he is the individual who actually committed the

arson which led directly to the deaths of the three victims. However, Mr. Morales submits

that this grouping approach, as it relates to him and his conviction of Accessory After the

Fact, is not an appropriate enhancement. His accessory conviction relates solely to conduct

that occurred after the fire had already been set. (emphasis added). Put another way, Mr.

Morales conduct of driving his son, Hector Natal, away from the arson scene constitutes a

single event or transaction that played no part whatsoever in the setting of this tragic fire or

the deadly consequences that flowed from it.

Mr. Morales argues that the act of assisting someone to flee from the scene of a crime,

regardless if a death(s) occurs, should be viewed as a victimless crime for grouping purposes.

Subsection (d) of 3D1.2provides a means for the sentencing judge to group counts involving

harms to different victims[w]hen the offense level [for each count] is determined largely on

the basis of the total amount of harm or lossor some other measure of aggregate harm

United States v Napoli, 179 F.3d 1, 9 (2d Cir. 1999). In drug trafficking cases, which are

also grouped together for Guideline calculation purposes, the illegal distribution of narcotics

harms not only the drug user, but also, the community at large by increasing lawlessness and

violence, and offenders of these crimes invade distinct societal interests. SeeU.S. v Johnson,

445 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that decision to aggregate drug quantities involved in

separate charges was reasonable); U.S. v Johnston, 146 F.3d 785 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding

4



5/27

that district court properly grouped all drug offenses together to determine the total

punishment under paragraph (d)). Similarly, providing a means of flight for a perpetrator

who commits a crime imposes a distinct societal harm because it assists in creating

separation between the police, who respond to the scene, and the actual offender, ultimately

hindering the offenders apprehension.

The conduct that the jury attributed to Mr. Morales, that of helping his son flee the

Wolcott Street area after the fire had been set, involves substantially the same harm

notwithstanding that there were three victims attributed to Natals conduct. This constitutes

the total amount or aggregate harm attributed to Mr. Morales alleged actions. It seems a bit

unfair to cast a wide net and incorporate this enhancement against a defendant who plays no

part in the underlying crime, but simply gets involved with the offending party after the harm

has already been inflicted on the victims. (emphasis added). The mere fact that Morales

actions occurred after three innocent lives were lost is insufficient to establish that these

counts cannot be grouped under section 3D1.2(d) as one grouping category. Accordingly,

the defendants total offense level, as calculated by the probation department, should be

reduced by three levels. SeeU.S.S.G. 3d1.4.

B. Obstruction Enhancement

Addressing the two level obstruction enhancement pursuant to 3C1.1, Mr. Morales

argues it should not apply because hes already been convicted of the underlying offenses

which form the foundation for this enhancement. Mr. Morales is aware that application note

4 of this guideline states that the adjustment applies to any conduct regarding the official

investigation of the instant offense where there is a separate count of conviction for such

conduct. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, comment (n.4). Arguably the Witness Tampering and Destruction

5



6/27

and Concealment of Evidence convictions would normally qualify as appropriate conduct to

warrant such an adjustment, if the evidence was more compelling. (SeePSR 45). But that

is not the case here. The Second Superseding Indictment alleged that the object of the

conspiracy was to cause witnesses subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Juryto give

false and misleading information to the Grand Jury in order to prevent the Grand Jury from

developing evidence that Natal was responsible for the fatal fire and to protect Natal and

Morales from being criminally charged. The Second Superseding Indictment further

alleged that Morales testified falsely before the Grand Jury regarding his and Natals

whereabouts on the night of the arson; hearing a voice in the street at the time of the fire; and

the reason he painted the van after the fire. The Government further alleged that Natal and

Morales corruptly suggested to witnesses that they testify falsely before the Grand Jury

regarding Natals attempt to commit arson in October 2010; Natals whereabouts at the time

of the March 9, 2011 fire; and Morales alteration and concealment of evidence. Finally the

Indictment alleged that Morales and Natal would threaten witnesses who failed to comply.

(SeeSecond Superseding Indictment at 28-30).

In support of these allegations, the Government only offered the testimony of Jessica

Feliciano who allegedly was present for the family gatherings when the investigation was

discussed. And it is her testimony that is relied upon by the Probation Department in support

of the adjustment for obstruction. In 39 and 41 of the PSR, the Probation Department

captures excerpts from the trial transcript of Felicianos testimony concerning the tampering

and destruction/concealment charges. During questions posed by the Government to Ms.

Feliciano, she testified as to what she heard Mr. Morales say to his family members in the

days and/or weeks following the arson fire. Specifically, she heard Mr. Morales instruct

6



7/27

everyone to state that he painted his van from blue to black because Natal intended to

purchase it from him; and that a Mexican jewelry salesman had tried to start a fire at 48-50

Wolcott Street in the Fall of 2010. However, in no instance did Ms. Feliciano unequivocally

state that Mr. Morales instructed her or anyone else to testify falsely to the Grand Jury. She

couched her testimony in terms of her understandingas to what Mr. Morales meant by his

words. PSR at 39 and 41. Moreover, Felicianos naked allegations were not corroborated

by any independent evidence and were, in fact, denied by other witnesses who testified at

trial and/or before the Grand Jury. This evidence does not establish that Mr. Morales

obstructed or impeded the investigation. Rather, it is purely Ms. Felicianos interpretation of

Mr. Moraless alleged comments.

As to the Grand Jury testimony pertaining to Mr. Morales, where he admitted that he

painted the van after the fire and his concession that although Jorge Natal wanted the van

painted a different color he [Jorge] did not have a license and never paid him or completed

the paperwork for the sale, the Court should be mindful that not all inaccurate testimony or

statements made by a defendant necessarily is attributed to a willful attempt to obstruct

justice. SeeU.S.S.G. 3C1.1 at Application Note 2. The commentary stresses that

inaccurate testimony or statements sometimes may result from confusion, mistake or faulty

memory. Id. The evidence is irrefutable that Mr. Moraless intellectual capacity is low

functioning. In fact, he cannot read or write in either the Spanish or English language. See

PSR 100-101. He was diagnosed with an unspecified learning disability and dropped out of

school shortly after starting high school. Id. With this historical background relating to Mr.

Morales education, coupled with his age and lack of criminal record, it appears quite

unlikely that he had the intellect to conjure up this conspiracy to swart the Governments

7



8/27

investigation of the arson offense. Instead, the evidence at trial established that the defendant

continued to drive the van for weeks after the FBI began to question his son in relation to the

fire and all the way up to the point he was arrested. He even drove himself and Feliciano to

FBI headquarters in the same van when they were questioned about the arson. Another

compelling argument that Morales did not attempt to destroy or conceal evidence is that the

van wasnt painted until three-weeks after the arson occurred. Moreover, the van was parked

across from the crime scene during the period that the investigation was ongoing and police

and other law enforcement agents were actively assembled there.

In summary, the Governments attempt to create this impression of the defendant as

the sophisticated leader of his family clan who spearheaded and orchestrated this elaborate

scheme to impede the Governments investigation of the arson offense is simply not

supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the two-level Obstruction enhancement should not

be applied in this case.

PART II. SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS & RECOMMENDATION

As the Court knows, a sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to

comply with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Based upon the

foregoing, Mr. Morales respectfully asks this Court to impose a sentence below the 168-210

month Guideline range, which appears to be unduly harsh for his alleged involvement in the

offense. The Defendant is obviously aware that the Court listened to all of the testimony at

trial and reviewed all of the exhibits as they were entered into evidence in this matter and that

the Court has come to its own conclusions relative to Mr. Morales participation and

culpability in the alleged criminal offenses. Notwithstanding what the Court has heard about

Mr. Morales during the trial, and even if the Court does not sustain the defendants

8



9/27

objections with respect to the grouping and obstruction enhancements as suggested in the

PSR, the Court still should not sentence Mr. Morales within the recommended advisory

Guideline range. In short, a sentence well below the advisory Guidelines range would more

than satisfy the Second Circuits recognition of imposing individualized justice, United

States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 114 (2d Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, United

States v Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 142 (2d Cir. 2005), as well as the statutory mandate that a

sentence be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of

sentencing. This Court should not regard the recommended Guideline range of 168-

210 months as reasonable and, whether by way of variance or downward departure, should

instead impose a much lower sentence in this case.

A. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

In fashioning an individualized and just sentence, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) directs the

Court to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant. In this case, there are

several factors in Mr. Morales life that should give rise to such consideration, including, (1)

his dedication to his family, and (2) his age combined with the lack of any likelihood of

recidivism. These factors, considered separately or together as a combination of factors

warrant a sentence well below the recommended advisory range, which would be sufficient

to meet the goals of sentencing in this case.

1. Dedication to Family

Mr. Morales is a quiet, spiritual man whos lived a fairly simple and uneventful life

until the tragic events that transpired on March 9, 2011. During his 52 year of existence in

this world Mr. Morales wished no ill will or harm towards anyone. His life revolved around

his family and fulfilling their happiness. For the past 35+ years, hes been in a monogamous

9



10/27

relationship with his girlfriend, Elizabeth Natal, who is the mother of his three children. As a

young boy growing up in Puerto Rico, he was fortunate to be raised in a loving and nurturing

environment where his parents set an excellent example for him and his nine siblings to

follow. Both mom and dad worked so they were able to provide their large family with the

necessary essentials to live a comfortable life.

After Hector Morales and his family left Puerto Rico and eventually settled in New

Haven, he met his girlfriend Elizabeth, and following a brief courtship they decided to start

their own family. Nothing made Hector happier than spending quality time with his young

children. On weekends he would take them to a local park and in the summer to the beach,

and he always had their best intentions in mind. Living predominantly in the Fair Haven

section of the city, Hector was vigilant to keep a lookout for trouble, and if he sensed the

slightest rumbling on the street, hed order the children to play inside the apartment. Their

safety and well-being was of paramount importance to him.

As the children grew older, Hectors role shifted to becoming the family chauffer.

Since Hector and his wife sustained themselves on disability compensation, they could only

afford to own one car for the family. As the father, Hector was designated to be the familys

taxi service and he happily agreed to drive the other family members around town wherever

they needed to go, whether it was shopping, school, or other social events. This is how

Hector got himself unwittingly involved in his sons drug activities. Natal frequently asked

his father to drive him places, and often times, it involved Natals illicit practices. Always

acting as the family guardian and protector, Hector the father would usually warn his son to

be careful when he left the van if he saw a police presence in the neighborhood. This

cautionary alert was given to remind his son to avoid getting into any trouble. Contrary to

10



11/27

the Governments belief, the warning was not provided because Hector Morales had direct

knowledge that Natal was going to engage in a narcotics transaction. Rather, it was a simple

reminder to be careful on the street, much the same way that Sergeant Phil Esterhaus of the

Hill Street Blues TV series cautioned his fellow officers when they left roll call, Hey, lets

be careful out there.

Examining Mr. Morales social history as set forth in the PSR, he has no history of

substance abuse and his alcohol consumption was limited primarily to holiday celebrations.

Obviously, he also has no criminal history as referenced in 74. However, the PSR reflects

two prior arrests, one in 1981 and the other in 1985, and both of these allegations were

eventually dismissed by the court. Therefore, Mr. Morales objects to these allegations being

referenced in the PSR and moves that they be redacted.1

Despite spending the past 30-months in confinement, Hector Morales family still

remains the foremost priority in his life. While incarcerated, he lost his father who passed

away from diabetes and pneumonia. It still pains him that he was unable to attend his

fathers funeral. When talking about his mother, Hector Moraless eyes usually well up with

tears. He describes his love for her as more than anything and sadly, he recognizes that her

declining health means he will likely miss her funeral in the future as well. Reflecting on his

case from behind the barren concrete prison walls, Hector Morales finds it most difficult to

reconcile how Jessica Feliciano, a person that he cared so much about and considered to be

1 Defense counsel inadvertently failed to object to the inclusion of Paragraphs 76 and 77 in

the PSR when he filed his objections. Therefore, at the time of sentencing Mr. Moralesmoves the Court to order that these two paragraphs be redacted from the 2 ndDisclosure.

11



12/27

like family, could construct and fabricate so many lies that ultimately led to his incarceration

and the ongoing nightmare that he encounters on a daily basis.

All of the other people that Mr. Morales interacted with and had been good to over the

years testified truthfully about him at trial, including his daughter, his former landlord, and

his former neighbor. Hector Morales is described by family members as a kind, gentle,

loving family man who would always go out of his way to help others. This is hardly the

man who would participate in a horrible crime like hes been convicted of.

At the time of sentencing Hector Morales will ask this Court to consider his entire life

prior to the events of March 9, 2011. Although Mr. Morales children are all grown, they

continue to rely upon him emotionally. He looks forward to the day that he can return to his

family and support them again.

2. Unlikelihood of Recidivism

Mr. Morales is fifty-two years old; he is a son, brother, husband, father, and

grandfather. His record is not only devoid of any prior criminal activity, but he has lived

devoutly, dedicating all of his time to his family and faith. Due to his lack of criminal

history, combined with his age and the unlikelihood that he will recidivate, he should be

given more credit for status. SeeUnited States v Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 381 (2d Cir. 2013)

(Underhill, J. concurring) (older defendants can be expected to have a lower risk of

recidivism than most); United States v Huckin, 529 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (10th Cir. 2008)

(a district court may weigh a defendants lack of criminal record, even when the

defendant has been placed into a Criminal History Category I, in its 3553(a) analysis.).

12



13/27

In United States v Ward, 814 F. Supp. 23, 24 (E.D. Va. 1993), the Court departed

from the then-mandatory Guidelines because they failed to consider the length of time a

defendant refrains from the commission of his first crime. (While awarding defendants

generally and this defendant individually some credit for leading relatively crime-free lives,

the Criminal History Category of the Sentencing Guidelines does not account for the length

of time a particular defendant refrains from criminal conduct.); see alsoUnited States v

Greene, 249 F.Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (it is unlikely that Greene will repeat his

criminal conduct given that he is sixty-five year[s] old and previously had no criminal history

points. For all of these reasons, anyperiod of incarceration would be inappropriate.); United

States v Carmona-Rodriquez, No. 04 CR 667RWS, 2005 WL 840464, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)

(the Court departed downwards 4 levels based on the fact that the defendant was 55 years

old, she had no prior criminal record, she was unlikely to recidivate and she suffered from

high blood pressure and diabetes); United States v Nellum, No. 2:04-CR-30-PS, 2005 WL

300073, at *3 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (the Court departed downwards 4 levels based upon a number

of factors, including that the defendant would be 65 years old upon his release, his high blood

pressure, blocked prostate, history of a heart attack, and his military service.); U.S.

Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the

Federal Sentencing Guidelines, p. 12 (May 2004) (Recidivism rates decline relatively

consistently as age increases.) (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Indeed, the Sentencing

Commission has found that the best candidates for a crime-free future are those who have

little criminal history, a good recent employment record, are presently employed or attending

school, have no history of drug abuse, have no present drug use, and have a stable living

arrangement with a spouse. SeeU.S. Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Options under the

13



14/27

Guidelines, Staff Discussion Paper, p. 18 (Nov. 1996) (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The

foregoing, for the most part, applies to Mr. Morales, a fifty-two year old man, whos been in

a 35 year relationship with his girlfriend, Elizabeth Natal, with no substance abuse issues

(PSR at 95), who is wholeheartedly devoted to his family.

B. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Even if the Court credits the Governments version of the offenses and the jurys

verdicts, the Court must nevertheless consider the various facts which mitigate the

defendants involvement in the case. First, the Government does not suggest that Mr.

Morales assisted his son in the actual setting of the fire. His participation, according to the

indictment, was limited to driving his son away from 48-50 Wolcott Street after Natal ran out

from the building.2 Thereafter, Mr. Morales is alleged to have impeded the arson

investigation by providing false and misleading information to the Grand Jury to prevent

them from developing evidence of Natals responsibility for the fatal fire. Finally, Mr.

Morales is alleged to have assisted his son in distributing narcotics by serving as his driver

and holding drug monies for him.

The Court must consider that as a father, Mr. Morales has always felt it was his duty to

protect his family from any potential harm that may confront them. This is a practice that he

routinely performed since his children were young. Sadly, Mr. Morales continued this role

of protector once he discovered that his son was responsible for causing this terrible crime.

He recognized the gravity of the situation and tried to deflect evidence away from Natal

during the investigation by creating another possible suspect, the Mexican jeweler. He also

2No evidence was presented at trial to suggest that Mr. Morales was aware of Natals

actions before he entered the building.

14



15/27

decided to paint the van once he learned that a witness had seen it leaving the crime scene.

As to the drug conspiracy, Morales often drove Natal around town, and sometimes, his son

performed drug transactions during these trips. Morales didnt condone this illegal activity,

but he didnt stop his son either. He would simply warn him to be careful whenever he

stepped out onto the streets. Once Mr. Morales committed himself to covering for his son, he

had stepped onto a slippery slope and there was no turning back.

C. Seriousness of the Offense

Mr. Morales concedes that the Arson offense is a very serious crime because three

innocent lives were lost in this tragic fire. The photographs of the crime scene that were

introduced into evidence speak a thousand words in describing the sheer terror that the

occupants of the residence must have experienced as the fire raged through the walls and

hallways of their home. But hopefully, the Court will consider Hector Natals conduct in this

offense separate and apart from his fathers alleged actions. Certainly, the Court must

impose a significant sentence that reflects the seriousness of the case as three people died.

However, in light of the circumstances behind Mr. Morales alleged participation in the

offenses of conviction, he asks the Court to arrive at a just sentence that is below the

recommended advisory Guideline range.

D. Protecting the Public From Further Crimes

In considering the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,

this Court should consider that Mr. Moraless alleged conduct occurred solely because of the

actions of his son, Hector Natal. Specific deterrence is certainly unnecessary in this case.

The offense conduct was situation-specific and extremely narrow in scope. Assuming Mr.

Natal receives a life sentence, the defendant will never be in contact with him again in the

15



16/27

community. Accordingly, Mr. Morales poses no societal risk and needs not to be deterred -

through an overly lengthy prison sentence or otherwise from engaging in any similar

conduct in the future. A sentence of below the advisory guidelines will certainly send a

strong message to the community that being an accessory after the fact to an arson that

results in death will be met with a harsh federal punishment.

There is simply no evidence to suggest that a harsher sentence of imprisonment of

more than 97-months is necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing, including deterring the

defendant from committing crimes in the future. The Department of Justice, itself, has

acknowledged that sending an offender to prison isnt a very effective way to deter crime

and increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. Seepamphlet produced

by the U.S. Department of Justice, Five Things About Deterrence, July, 2014 (attached

hereto as Exhibit C).

In short, Mr. Morales well-publicized arrest, prosecution and conviction, coupled

with a sentence of no more than 97-months of incarceration, completely satisfies the general

deterrent interests of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). In terms of the length of incarceration, there is no

evidence that a period approaching the PSRs advisory Guideline range will have any greater

deterrent effect than the sentence called for by the defenses Guideline calculation. Just

punishment may be imposed and proper respect for the law promoted with a sentence

consistent with the defenses proposal.

IV. CONCLUSION

As cited above, a fundamental principle of sentencing is that a court shall impose a

sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet specified sentencing goals,

16



17/27

including the goal of just punishment. See18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Mr. Morales understands

fully that he stands convicted of serious federal crimes and that these convictions will have

significant consequences. The arguments advanced in this memorandum for a sentence not

to exceed 97-month in no way seeks to diminish the actual seriousness of the crimes for

which he has been convicted. Rather, Mr. Morales background, history and character, as

well as consideration of the circumstances of the offenses of conviction, are factors for the

Court to consider for imposing a sentence below the advisory Guideline range. For these

reasons, a sentence of no more than 97-months imprisonment would be a sufficient and just

sentence in this case.

The Defendant

Hector Morales

_______/s/_________________________William H. Paetzold

Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood

2230 Main Street

Glastonbury, CT 06033Tel. (860) 657-1010

Fax (860) 657-1011Federal Bar No.: ct10074

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the foregoing was filed electronically on December 29, 2014 to all

parties by operation of the courts electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept

electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.

_______/s/____________________William H. Paetzold

17



18/27



19/27



20/27



21/27



22/27



23/27



24/27



25/27



26/27



27/27


Documents

Morales Defense Memo