Hallas Sentencing Memorandum Response

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_____________________________________ :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : :

Plaintiff, : : v. : Criminal No. 11-299 (EGS) :

: THEODOROS N. HALLAS :

: Sentencing Date: October 30, 2012 Defendant. :

____________________________________ :

DEFENDANT THEODOROS N. HALLAS’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING

In accordance with Section 6A1.2 of the advisory United States Sentencing Guidelines

(USSG or Guidelines), Theodoros N. Hallas, through counsel, respectfully submits this

memorandum to aid the Court in determining an appropriate sentence.

Mr. Hallas agrees with the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI Report”)’s calculation

of the adjusted, pre-departure offense level as a level 19 (30-37 months in Zone D). In its

October 19, 2012, sentencing memorandum and incorporated motion for a downward departure,

the government moved for a five-level downward departure, resulting in an offense level of 14

(yielding a sentencing range of 15-21 months in Zone D), and further recommended that the

Court impose a sentence of incarceration at the bottom of that range. We join the government’s

motion for a reduction in the offense level pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines in

recognition of Mr. Hallas’s substantial assistance to the government. However, for the reasons

set forth herein, we respectfully urge the Court to either impose a greater downward departure or

vary from the advisory Guidelines level and/or from the punishments associated with a Zone D

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 of 17

2

sentencing range, see USSG § 5C1.1(f), and impose an alternative, non-incarcerative sentence

involving home or community confinement, community service and any other appropriate

conditions determined by the Court.

We respectfully submit that Mr. Hallas’s actions after the offense conduct, including his

substantial cooperation with the government and his ongoing pursuit for personal rehabilitation,

along with his unique family circumstances, provide the Court with a sufficient basis to fashion a

non-incarcerative sentence that remains consistent with the statutory sentencing considerations

set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Procedural Background

Mr. Hallas waived indictment, and on October 13, 2011, he entered a guilty plea before

the Court pursuant to a one-count Information charging him with conspiracy to commit wire

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Through his guilty plea, Mr. Hallas has explicitly

acknowledged his criminal behavior and demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for his

actions. In addition, Mr. Hallas has provided the Court, through the Probation Office, with a

written statement setting forth more fully his acknowledgement of his wrongful behavior. The

statement is quoted in full in the PSI Report, filed on August 29, 2012; we also attach a copy

hereto as Exhibit 1.

Mr. Hallas, with undersigned counsel, has carefully reviewed the PSI Report prepared by

United States Probation Officer Crystal S. Lustig. We have no material objections to the PSI

Report’s contents or its calculation of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.1 We

1 As noted in the government’s Motion for 5K1.1 Downward Departure and Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing, under the Plea Agreement, Mr. Hallas had reserved the ability to challenge the loss determination in a limited fashion. Mr. Hallas, upon review of information not available at the time he entered his guilty plea, accepts the loss determination and the resulting advisory


3

acknowledge that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range may constitute a reasonable

punishment. However, for reasons set forth herein and pursuant to Mr. Hallas’s reserved

allocution rights under the plea agreement, we respectfully submit that various sentencing

considerations listed in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) warrant the imposition of an alternative sentence

that does not involve incarceration.

I. SENTENCING UNDER BOOKER

The PSI Report, utilizing the 2010 edition of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines,

calculates Mr. Hallas’s final adjusted offense level at 19, with a criminal history category of I,

yielding a Zone D sentencing range of 30-37 months. On October 19, 2012, in

acknowledgement of Mr. Hallas’s substantial cooperation with and assistance to the government

in its ongoing investigation of potential criminal and civil violations of laws related to

government contracting, the government filed a Motion for 5K1.1 Downward Departure and

Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing (“Motion for Downward Departure”) seeking a reduction of

Mr. Hallas’s adjusted offense level to 14, yielding a Zone D sentencing range of 15-21 months

and further recommending that Mr. Hallas be sentenced at the bottom of that range to a 15-

month term of incarceration. Mr. Hallas, who is acknowledged to be the first individual to agree

to cooperate with the government’s investigation, see Motion for Downward Departure at 16-17,

certainly agrees that his offense levels should be reduced based on his substantial assistance to

the government.2 We respectfully submit that either an additional degree of departure to a level

Guidelines offense level of 19 as a correct calculation under the Guidelines approach to determining loss. 2 Mr. Hallas acknowledges, as detailed in the government’s Motion for Downward Departure, that he was not candid or forthcoming about his own conduct in his first cooperation meeting with the government. While by no means does Mr. Hallas attempt to justify his missteps, we note that Mr. Hallas was represented at that meeting by other counsel and we do not know all the


4

which would place Mr. Hallas in Zone B or C of the Guidelines and, therefore, eliminate the

strictures of a Zone D sentence under USSG §5C1.1(f), or a variance from the length and types

of punishment notionally associated with a Zone D sentence, is appropriate in this case.

The Guidelines, of course, now play only an advisory role in determining an appropriate

sentence. The determination of the Guidelines sentencing range, once a largely dispositive

component to determining sentences in federal criminal cases, is now but one factor to be

considered along with many other factors. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 246

(2005). While the sentencing courts must take into consideration the applicable Guidelines

range, they also must “tailor the sentence in light of other statutory concerns.” Id. (citing 18

U.S.C. §3553(a)). Thus, sentencing courts now have greater latitude to disagree with a

Guidelines range and may impose an alternative sentence that is reasonable and tied to the

factors listed in §3553(a). See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 59 (2007) (“…[T]he

Guidelines state that probation alone is not an appropriate sentence for comparable offenses. But

the Guidelines are not mandatory, and thus the range of choice dictated by the facts of the case is

significantly broadened. Moreover, the Guidelines are only one of the factors to consider when

imposing sentence, and § 3553(a)(3) directs the judge to consider sentences other than

imprisonment.”); see also United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 1089, 1096 (D.C. Cir. 2008)

(“The bottom line is this: District judges now have far more substantive discretion in sentencing

than they had pre-Booker.”).

particulars about what occurred. Mr. Hallas engaged the undersigned following that meeting and, his subsequent cooperation efforts were ultimately constructive, valuable, and substantial. As the government stated, “Although [Mr. Hallas]’s cooperation got off to a shaky start, it ended up being highly effective.” Motion for Downward Departure at 2. As a result of Mr. Hallas’s cooperation, other targets were identified and prosecuted and they, in turn, led the government to “the investigation and prosecution of an historically large bribery, kickback, and bid steering scheme.” Id. at 3.


5

Thus, while the sentencing range determined consistent with the Guidelines may reflect a

reasonable sentence to impose, other factors have regained their relevance and vitality in the

sentencing calculation. Pursuant to the guidance provided by Booker, the D.C. Circuit has

directed that sentencing courts in this Circuit should “evaluate how well the applicable guideline

effectuates the purposes of sentencing enumerated in §3553(a).” United States v. Pickett, 475

F.3d 1347, 1353 (D.C. Cir. 2007). The primary directive in §3553(a) is for the imposition of a

sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes articulated

in §3553(a)(2), namely:

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

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;

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

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

In determining a minimally sufficient sentence, §3553(a) further directs sentencing courts to

consider the following factors:

1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant (§3553(a)(1));

2) The kinds of sentences available (§3553(a)(3));

3) The advisory sentencing guidelines range (§3553(a)(4));

4) Any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission (§3553(a)(5));

5) The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct (§3553(a)(6)); and

6) The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. (§3553(a)(7)).


6

We respectfully submit that these statutory factors provide an ample basis for this Court to not

only grant the government’s motion for a downward departure but to either give an additional

level of departure to a Zone B or C sentence or vary from the advisory Sentencing Guidelines

range or vary from the type of sentence permitted under Zone D, and to impose an alternative,

non-incarcerative sentence.

II. APPLICATION OF STATUTORY SENTENCING FACTORS

A. Nature and circumstances of the offense and history and characteristics of the offender. This is a serious case and Mr. Hallas does not take lightly his conduct or the gravity and

consequences of his felony criminal conviction. His conduct is well-documented in the PSI

Report and the filings associated with Mr. Hallas’s guilty plea. That said, it is important to

provide some perspective on Mr. Hallas’s wrongful actions, as well as to describe more fully

who Mr. Hallas is and the circumstances in which he finds himself today.

We respectfully urge the Court to consider the numerous letters we are submitting in

support of Mr. Hallas, attached hereto at Exhibits 7 - 23.3 One of the letters is from Mr. Hallas’s

father, Basilios Hallas, who came to this country from Greece in 1966 and worked three jobs to

support his family. He instilled strong values in his children, all of whom served as Past

Presidents of the Greek Orthodox Youth of America. See Exhibit 9. One of those children,

Michael, is a veteran United States Capitol Police Officer. Michael Hallas describes his big

brother, Theodoros Hallas, as a supportive and responsible member of his family and

community. See Exhibit 11. Michael Hallas also articulates a common thread weaved

3 Pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(f), and in an abundance of caution, the names of minor children and personal identifiers such as street addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses have been redacted. Undersigned counsel has possession of the original documents and will provide them to the Court, Probation Office, or the government upon request.


7

throughout those letters, namely, the experience by those who know Theodoros Hallas best: that

he is a loyal friend, one who is always there to lend a helping hand. Mr. Hallas is described by

his wife as a person who is always “willing to look for opportunities to help others” and who has

passionately told her to “always help others when you can.” See Exhibit 8. Throughout most of

his life, this aspect of Mr. Hallas’s personality has been a positive attribute. In the instant case,

however, we submit this people-pleasing characteristic was a terrible flaw: Mr. Hallas chose to

assist a colleague by submitting false past performance references to the government and, in

return, this colleague did the same for him and they repeated this action multiple times. As more

fully detailed in Mr. Hallas’s statement attached hereto at Exhibit 1, Mr. Hallas deeply regrets

these tremendous errors in judgment, and he has accepted responsibility for his criminal activity.

Mr. Hallas has also begun, and continues to engage in, the lengthy process of rehabilitation. See

Letter from Dr. Joshua Cohen, attached hereto at Exhibit 6; see also Letter from Reverend

Father Dimitrios J. Antokas, attached hereto at Exhibit 7.

Many defendants who appear before the Court for sentencing, of course, are, like Mr.

Hallas, contrite and are haunted by their past actions, and fearful of what the future may hold.

Like many of them, Mr. Hallas suffers from anxiety about how to provide for his family in the

event of his incarceration. But Mr. Hallas’s family responsibilities are unique and merit

consideration in determining an appropriate sentence. Mr. Hallas’s loving and supportive wife

does not have a college degree and has limited employment skills and experience. The

ramifications of Mr. Hallas’s potential incarceration, given Mrs. Hallas’s few employment

opportunities, are magnified by the unique and significant challenges arising from the Hallas’

responsibilities in raising two young sons with special needs. In June 2011, “A”, age five, was

diagnosed with Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with


8

Streptococcal infections (“PANDAS”), an auto-immune disorder characterized by obsessive-

compulsive behaviors, tic disorders, and other neuropsychotic symptoms such as severe

separation anxiety, sensory-processing disorders, and developmental regression. See Exhibit 2

(Letter from Dr. Elizabeth Latimer) and Exhibit 3 (National Institute of Mental Health

Pediatrics Developmental Neuroscience Branch, Information regarding PANDAS). “N”, age 3,

is also exhibiting similar symptoms and is under evaluation for PANDAS. Additionally, both A

and Mrs. Hallas suffer from Lyme Disease, and N is currently undergoing evaluation for Lyme

Disease, as it may have been passed in utero from Mrs. Hallas. See Exhibit 4 (Letter from Dr.

Charles Jones) and Exhibit 5 (Letter from Dr. Paul Beals). The treatments for A and N,

including physical and occupational therapies, as well as a number of medications, are expensive

and time-consuming. Additionally, as PANDAS is a relatively new term used to describe a

larger class of symptoms, some treatments are not covered by health insurance. Accordingly,

Mr. Hallas pays out-of-pocket for programs and schools designed to fit the needs of his children.

And, as well-documented in the letters, Mr. Hallas plays a large role in assisting and encouraging

his sons as they confront the challenges presented by their disorders.

As detailed more fully in the PSI Report, Mr. Hallas’s finances are stretched to the limit.

He is heavily indebted to the federal government for income tax obligations, the Maryland state

government, as well as to various credit card companies. Mrs. Hallas lacks the skills and

education to earn an income that would adequately provide for the needs of their children. As

the sole income earner, Mr. Hallas’s income is barely sufficient to cover their children’s medical

treatments, as well as to afford his wife the ability to care for A and N, taking them from one

appointment to the next, and following up on their numerous therapies, exercises, and

medications designed to mitigate some of their symptoms. Should that ability to earn an income


9

be removed, and a term of incarceration will virtually assure that no meaningful income will be

generated for the Hallas family during that term, Mr. Hallas reasonably fears that his family,

particularly his two small children, will suffer greatly. We respectfully request that the Court

consider a sentence of home or community confinement, which would permit Mr. Hallas to

continue to support his family and pay his financial obligations, particularly those related to his

sons’ special needs.

B. Affording adequate deterrence to criminal conduct

Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2)(B) directs that the sentence imposed afford adequate deterrence to

criminal conduct. A term of imprisonment is not necessarily required to accomplish this goal.

See Gall, 552 U.S. at 48 (“We recognize that custodial sentences are qualitatively more severe

than probationary sentences of equivalent terms. Offenders on probation are nonetheless subject

to several standard conditions that substantially restrict their liberty.”); United States v. Knights,

534 U.S. 112, 119 (2001) (“Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers do not

enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled.”) (citation omitted). Rather, it is

primarily the fact that Mr. Hallas has been charged, convicted of a felony that will deter other

potential offenders. His felony conviction will deprive him of certain employment opportunities

for the rest of his life. For example, as a direct result of his guilty plea, Mr. Hallas was notified

virtually immediately of his proposed debarment by the U.S. Small Business Administration.

Additionally, this matter and the related matters documented in the government’s Motion for

Downward Departure have been the subject of extensive local media and internet coverage,

particularly in the government contracting community.4 Mr. Hallas and members of his family

4 See, e.g., Del Quentin Wilber, Former Nova Datacom executive admits to falsifying information for federal bids, Washington Post Online (October 13, 2011), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/former-nova-datacom-executive-admits-to-falsifying-


10

have been the subject of vicious entries in a blog focused on the local government contracting

industry. To the extent that the severity of a sentence has deterrent value, it is nevertheless only

one factor to be considered among many others. The media coverage and the stress and public

shame heaped on Mr. Hallas as he has been awaiting sentencing since his guilty plea more than

one year ago, along with another year of cooperation obligations and efforts prior to that time,

have been a form of punishment of a different, but meaningful, nature. As further evidence of

the weight of this matter, Mr. Hallas has been treated by mental health professionals for major

depressive disorder, as documented in the attached Letter from Dr. Joshua Cohen (Exhibit 6),

and in the PSI Report at ¶¶ 59-61.5

C. Protecting the public from further crimes of the defendant.

Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(2)(C) directs that the sentence imposed protect the public from

further crimes by the defendant. Extended incarceration is not always necessary to achieve this

goal, and it is imperative that such punishment be proportional to the social harm committed, as

determined by the Court.

information-for-federal-bids/2011/10/13/glQANpUmiL_story.html; Del Quentin Wilber and Robert O’Harrow, ‘Brazen’ contracting scam: Records provide a window into audacious swindle, Washington Post Online (December 24, 2011), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/brazen-contracting-scam-detailed-in-federal-allegations/2011/12/20/glQA8hw5FP_story.html; Del Quentin Wilber, Ex-Army Corp of Engineers employee pleads guilty in contracting scam, Washington Post Online (February 13, 2012), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/ex-army-corps-of-engineers-manager-pleads-guilty-in-contracting-scam/2012/02/12/glQApTwsBR_story.html; Clarence Williams, Father and son plead guilty in multimillion-dollar federal bribery scheme, Washington Post Online (May 18, 2012), available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/father-and-son-plead-guilty-in-multimillion-dollar-federal-bribery-scheme/2012/05/17/glQAhFH5XU_story.html. 5 Indeed, the Court may recall taking time during Mr. Hallas’s October 13, 2011, plea hearing to ensure that Mr. Hallas was mentally strong enough to make it through the plea colloquy with the Court.


11

Mr. Hallas has had ample opportunity during the course of the investigation and since he

pleaded guilty to review and reflect upon his actions. The criminal conduct that brings him

before this Court sharply contrasts with the honorable life he has otherwise led. Mr. Hallas is

acutely aware of the impact that his actions have had on his family, and he lives each day with

great pain, embarrassment and anxiety. He has fully cooperated with all conditions of release,

spent many hours receiving and participating in therapy sessions (see Exhibit 6 and PSI Report

at ¶¶ 59-61), and spoken at length with his priest (see Exhibit 7). Mr. Hallas benefits from a

large, supportive family, and, as demonstrated by the numerous letters of support attached hereto

(see Exhibits 8 - 23), he is well-loved and respected not only within his family, but by his peers

and community as well. These letters provide additional depth and color to the “Ted Hallas”

described within the confines of the PSI Report and the filings associated with his guilty plea;

they reveal a man sincerely committed to helping others, a man devoted to caring for his young

sons as they face a battery of health problems, a man deeply ashamed of his criminal acts, and a

man profoundly dedicated to his own rehabilitation. As originally stated by the District Judge,

and recited by the Supreme Court in Gall:

Any term of imprisonment in this case would be counter effective by depriving society of the contributions of the Defendant who, the [District] Court has found, understands the consequences of his criminal conduct and is doing everything in his power to forge a new life. The Defendant’s post-offense conduct indicates neither that he will return to criminal behavior nor that the Defendant is a danger to society.

Gall, 552 U.S. at 45. Similarly, Mr. Hallas is exceedingly unlikely to repeat the sort of conduct

for which he is to be sentenced, regardless of the length of the sentence imposed. We

respectfully submit that incarceration does not relate to any meaningful concept of addressing a

need to protect the public from Mr. Hallas.


12

D. Providing the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

Mr. Hallas is a resourceful individual with experience and expertise in sales and

technology. While he will likely never regain the level of professional and personal success he

previously attained, particularly with a felony conviction, the government’s limited correctional

resources need not be used to provide vocational training or education for someone who is

already well-educated and adaptable. We respectfully submit that the goals of sentencing could

be served by a non-incarcerative sentence that would be substantially less costly for the

government and taxpayers while permitting Mr. Hallas to remain a productive and contributing

member of society.

E. The kinds of sentences available.

In Booker, the Supreme Court eliminated the mandatory nature of the federal sentencing

laws that obligated courts to sentence a defendant within a particular Guidelines range and

limited the types of sentences associated with particular zones. Because the Guidelines are now

advisory, the sentencing table and the restrictions on imposing probationary sentences, sentences

of home or community confinement, and split sentences, are also advisory. Thus, sentencing

courts have great discretion to draw upon all the available sentencing alternatives to fashion an

appropriate sentence without being constrained to a mechanical application of the zones and

ranges set forth in the Guidelines sentencing table. See Gardellini, 545 F.3d at 1095 (In

upholding the District Court’s sentence of probation and a fine on a defendant whose advisory

Guidelines range for his tax offense was 10 to 16 months, the D.C. Circuit stated: “The District

Court [Judge Henry H. Kennedy, Jr.] found that Gardellini had cooperated with authorities and

accepted responsibility for his crimes to an extraordinary degree, posed no risk of recidivism,

and already suffered substantially due to the criminal investigation into his wrongful actions.


13

Those findings were directly relevant to the § 3553(a) analysis … [and] the District Court’s

conclusion rests precisely on the kind of defendant-specific determinations that are within the

special competence of sentencing courts, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized.”)

(citation omitted). It is well within the Court’s discretion to impose a sentence below that or

different from that which would otherwise be dictated by a rigid application of the Guidelines,

including consideration of a sentence substituting community confinement or house arrest with

specified conditions for imprisonment, that would appropriately punish Mr. Hallas, but

simultaneously permit him to continue to provide for his family, and particularly meet the special

needs of his two sons. The Court can also appropriately impose community service obligations

that will result in not only a meaningful additional sentencing obligation but also benefit the

community much more than simply imposing a term of incarceration.

F. The advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

The PSI Report accurately states that the base offense level in this case is a 6, with a 14-

level increase resulting from a total intended loss of greater than $400,000, but less than

$1,000,000, as well as an additional 2-level increase for Mr. Hallas’s role in the offense. The

PSI Report also correctly reports that the parties have agreed to a 3-level reduction for Mr.

Hallas’s acceptance of responsibility, as demonstrated by his guilty plea and his assistance to the

government in the investigation and prosecution of other individuals. Accordingly, Mr. Hallas

agrees with the assessment of the PSI Report, calculating his total offense level at a 19.

On October 19, 2012, the government filed its Motion for Downward Departure

requesting that the Court grant Mr. Hallas an additional 5-level departure based on his significant

cooperation and assistance to the government. Should the Court agree to this departure, Mr.

Hallas final adjusted advisory offense level would be a level 14 in Zone D. The government has


14

further advocated for a sentence at the bottom of that range, namely a term of 15 months of

incarceration.

While the Guidelines calculation is correct, for the reasons discussed above, we

respectfully urge the Court to deviate from the advisory Guidelines and sentence Mr. Hallas to a

non-incarcerative term with other appropriate conditions, either based on a further downward

departure (or variance, primarily based on his children’s unusual health issues)6 or the imposition

of an alternative, non-incarcerative sentence within Zone D. As the D.C. Circuit stated in

Gardellini:

The central teaching of Gall is that the Guidelines are truly advisory. Therefore, different district courts can and will sentence differently – differently from the Sentencing Guidelines range, differently from the sentence an appellate court might have imposed, and differently from how other district courts might have sentenced that defendant. …The bottom line is this: District judges now have far more substantive discretion in sentencing than they had pre-Booker.

Id. at 1096. (emphasis in original). This analysis does not mean that a Guidelines sentence is

necessarily unreasonable; the post-Booker analysis simply underscores that other factors may

lend themselves to a sentencing court’s determination that a non-Guidelines sentence is more

appropriate. We respectfully submit that this is such a case.

We note further that while the value of the contracts Mr. Hallas’s former employer and

Raj Malik wrongfully obtained through Mr. Hallas’s actions and the actions of others has been

fairly considered in the PSI Report in terms of Guidelines loss calculation, the Court should also

consider that the contracts in issue were in fact performed, see Motion for Downward Departure

at 17. The gravamen of the offense conduct here was fabricating the qualifications to perform

the contracts, not the actual performance on the contracts. Thus, there is a qualitative difference

6 Consideration of such issues is not only contemplated by the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, but is expressly permitted under the Guidelines, pursuant to USSG §5H1.6.


15

between this type of case, where at least a substantial aspect of the loss determination is based on

a concept of intended loss, and a fraud case where a customer paid for goods or services that

were not actually provided, even though both cases are treated the same under the mathematical

rigidity of the Guidelines.7 As a result, while the Guidelines range may articulate a reasonable

sentence as a general proposition, in this case, we respectfully submit that the nature of the loss

determination concepts, along with the individualized factors we have identified, support Mr.

Hallas’s position that the imposition of a variant sentence that does not involve incarceration is a

more appropriate outcome.

The Guidelines range for a fine in this case is $6,000-$60,000. See PSI Report at ¶¶ 110

and 111. Given that Mr. Hallas has a substantial negative net financial worth and substantial

financial obligations, we agree with the PSI Report’s assessment that Mr. Hallas does not have

the ability to pay a fine in this case, a position echoed by the United States in its Motion for

Downward Departure. See Motion for Downward Departure at 15. The government also does

not intend to seek forfeiture. Id.

G. The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among similarly situated defendants. Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(6) directs that the “need to avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar

conduct” be considered when imposing sentences. After Booker, the significance of this factor,

7 These types of issues are precisely those that have prompted other sentencing courts to re-consider the Guidelines approach to loss-based sentences. See, e.g., United States v. White, No. 10-CR-516 SHS, 2012 WL 4513489 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2012) (holding, in the context of fraud involving the bona fides of the preferential status of a government contract bidder, “where a defendant fraudulently receives a government contract that has been set aside for a targeted group [there, a business owned by veterans or service-disabled veterans] and subsequently renders services to the government pursuant to that contract, the loss is the value of the benefit the defendant obtains - in this case, the actual or intended profit under the contract - not the full face value of the contract.”).


16

however, must be reassessed with the recognition that the sentence must ultimately be tailored to

the particular defendant, as no two defendants are exactly alike. As set forth throughout this

Memorandum, Mr. Hallas is a fundamentally good person who already fully understands that he

made terribly wrong choices. He has suffered and will continue to suffer the devastating

consequences of these actions, quite independent of any sentence imposed upon him.

Additionally, and unlike many similarly situated defendants, Mr. Hallas has provided meaningful

and substantial assistance to the government’s investigation of federal contracting fraud.8 Mr.

Hallas was the first individual to agree to cooperate in this investigation. As detailed in the

Motion for Downward Departure, Mr. Hallas’s cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office here

and in Baltimore has led to the successful prosecutions of multiple individuals with substantially

more culpability. His remorse, his assistance to the government, and his continued efforts at

rehabilitation demonstrate that a period of incarceration is simply not needed to teach Mr. Hallas

a lesson of which he is already painfully aware.

H. The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.

Pursuant to the Plea Agreement, the parties have agreed that Mr. Hallas will pay

restitution as ordered by the Court but the parties also agree that because the contracts were

actually performed, restitution is not an issue in this case. See Motion for Downward Departure

at 17. The PSI Report concurs that “[r]estitution is not an issue in this case.” PSI Report at ¶ 112.

8 Additionally, Mr. Hallas has cooperated with and provided information to the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland.


17

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we respectfully ask the Court to impose a sentence that does

not require incarceration and that does not impose a fine, forfeiture, restitution or other financial

obligations upon Mr. Hallas. Mr. Hallas, despite the conduct that brings him before the Court,

has been a good and productive member of society for many years and in many ways. He is

sincerely devoted to his family, particularly his wife and young sons, and his friends and his

community. He has committed serious errors in judgment for which he has already paid dearly,

and we respectfully urge the Court to consider the totality of his life, his unusual family

obligations, his considerable remorse and his dedication to assisting the government and

rehabilitating himself in fashioning an appropriate sentence.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Preston Burton ___________________________ Preston Burton, D.C. Bar No. 426378 Poe & Burton PLLC The Executive Building 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 580 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 583-2500 Fax: (202) 583-0565 Email: [email protected] /s/ Bree N. Murphy _____________________________ Bree N. Murphy, D.C. Bar No. 497418 Poe & Burton PLLC The Executive Building 1030 15th Street, N.W., Suite 580 West Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 583-2500 Fax: (202) 583-0565 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Theodoros N. Hallas


Hallas Sentencing Memorandum Response

Documents

Transcript of Hallas Sentencing Memorandum Response