Case: 5:09-cr-00374-DCN Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/15/09 1 of 5.

PageID #: 161

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 5:09CR374

)
Plaintiff, ) JUDGE DONALD C. NUGENT
)
v. )
)
FRANK M. PIGNATELLI, ) GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING
) MEMORANDUM
Defendant. )

Now comes the United States of America, by and through counsel, Steven M. Dettelbach,

United States Attorney, and Robert E. Bulford, Assistant United States Attorney, and respectfully

files this Sentencing Memorandum to assist the court on the sentencing of the defendant.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH
United States Attorney

By: s/Robert E. Bulford

Robert E. Bulford
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Reg. No. 0014679
801 West Superior Avenue, Suite 400
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
(216) 622-3774
Fax: (216) 522-7499
Robert.Bulford@usdoj.gov
 Case: 5:09-cr-00374-DCN Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/15/09 2 of 5. PageID #: 162

MEMORANDUM

Frank M. Pignatelli pleaded guilty to a one count information charging him with

conspiracy to launder monetary instruments. Pursuant to the plea agreement, as read in Court at

the plea hearing, on September 25, 2009, the Government and defendant agree and stipulated that

the applicable advisory Sentencing Guideline provisions are §§ 2S1.1(a)(2), 2B1.2(1)(h), and

2S1.1(b)(2)(B). The final advisory sentencing offense level is 22. The government agrees that

the defendant is entitled to a three level reduction in his offense level for Acceptance of

Responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b). With that reduction the defendant’s

advisory Sentencing Guideline offense level is 19. The calculations in the Presentence Report

agree with these stipulations. The Government has agreed to move the Court for a reduction in

the offense level five levels for Substantial Assistance, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K 1.1, provided

by Mr. Pignatelli in regards to the investigation and prosecution of others. The government has

provided the Court with a description of that cooperation. Should the Court agree and credit the

defendant with a five level reduction, the final offense level will be fourteen (14) . The

sentencing range here is 15-21 months. It is the government’s position that the defendant should

receive a sentence within that advisory sentencing Guideline Range.

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provides;

(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence.- The court shall impose a

sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes
set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular
sentence to be imposed, shall consider–
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics
of the defendant-
(2) the need for the sentence imposed
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law,
and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational

2
 Case: 5:09-cr-00374-DCN Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/15/09 3 of 5. PageID #: 163

training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective

manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentences and the sentencing range established for–
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable
category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines issued by the Sentencing
Commission pursuant to section 994(1) of Title 28, United States Code,
and that are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or
(B) ---------
(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant
To 28, United States Code, 994(a)(2) that is in effect on the date the defendant
is sentenced;
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

The nature and circumstances of the offense, Conspiracy to Launder Monetary

Instruments, here involves the defendant, an attorney, explaining to members of an ongoing drug

trafficking conspiracy a method by which they could take drug trafficking proceeds and funnel

them through an antique and artifacts business. He gave suggestions on how they could “clean”

the proceeds of an unlawful activity. Advice that would help them take proceeds of drug

trafficking and make them appear to be from legitimate business activity. The defendant is well

educated and was at the time of the offense a practicing attorney. A great portion of his law

practice was criminal defense work.

A criminal defense lawyer is tasked to zealously defend his clients against criminal

charges. He is to work to ensure that all of his client’s rights are protected. Defense attorney’s

must preform that function to guard the integrity of the criminal justice system. When an

attorney advises a person about how to commit a crime and or how to commit it in such a way as

to better avoid detection by law enforcement, that attorney steps out of the role of an attorney and

into a criminal mix as a conspirator. That action perverts the criminal justice system and

threatens its foundation.

3
 Case: 5:09-cr-00374-DCN Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/15/09 4 of 5. PageID #: 164

The government here asserts that in order to promote respect for the law, it is necessary to

sentence the defendant to a period of incarceration within the guideline range. Such a

punishment will also provide a deterring message to others who would consider entering into the

same quagmire as the defendant.

The properly calculated Sentencing Guidelines are the starting point and initial

benchmark at all sentencing proceedings Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.CT. 586

(2007). The Court should begin all sentencing hearings by correctly calculating the applicable

Guidelines range. (Id. 49-50). The Guidelines are not all that is to be considered. After

considering the arguments of both parties, the Court must consider all of the § 3553(a) factors

to determine the sentence to impose. The Court must make an “individualized assessment based

on the facts presented.” (Id.). If the Court determines an outside of the Guidelines sentence is

warranted the decision must be justified in the context of the § 3553(a) factors. A major

departure requires more significant justification. In the process of determining the appropriate

sentence no one § 3553(a) factor is inherently more important than any other such factor. United

States v. Phinazee 515 F. 3d 511 (6th Cir. 2008).

In this matter the government recognizes that the defendant is not likely to commit this

crime again. The focus of the government’s position is the nature and circumstances of the

offense combined with the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the

offense, to promote respect for the law, and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.

4
 Case: 5:09-cr-00374-DCN Doc #: 23 Filed: 12/15/09 5 of 5. PageID #: 165

For those reasons the defendant should be sentenced within the Guideline range provided

in the plea agreement and discussed in Court at the plea hearing.

Respectfully submitted,

STEVEN M. DETTELBACH
United States Attorney

By: s/Robert E. Bulford

Robert E. Bulford
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Reg. No. 0014679
400 United States Court House
801 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
(216) 622-3774
Fax: (216) 522-7499
Robert.Bulford@usdoj.gov

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 15th day of December, 2009, a copy of the foregoing

Government’s Sentencing Memorandum was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will

be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties indicated on the

electronic filing receipt. All other parties will be served by regular U.S. mail. Parties may

access this filing through the Court’s system.

s/Robert E. Bulford
Robert E. Bulford
Assistant U.S. Attorney