gonzalez 26 sept 2008 sentencing1

7/28/2019 Gonzalez 26 Sept 2008 Sentencing1

1/48

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * **UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v .CIRINO GONZALEZ

*

**

**

07-CR-189-03-GZSSeptember 26, 200810:04 a.m.*

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARINGBEFORE THE HONORABLE GEORGE Z. SINGAL

APPEARANCES:

For th e Government:

For th e Defendan t :

Proba t ion Off i c e r :

Cour t Repor t e r :

Arnold H. Huf t a l en , AUSAU.S. At t o rn ey ' s Off ice

David H. Bownes, Esg.Bownes Law Off i ce , PC

Cathy Ba t t i s t e l l iMel i s sa Elworthy

Susan M. Bateman, CSR, RPR, CRROf f i c i a l Cour t Repor t e rUni ted S t a t e s Di s t r i c t Court55 P lea s an t S t r e e tConcord, NH 03301(603)225-1453


2/48

PRO C E E DIN G S

2

THE CLERK: The Cou r t ha s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o nthis morn i n g c r im i n a l a c t i o n 07 -CR-189 -03 -GZS , Un i t e dS t a t e s o f Amer i c a v e r s u s C i r i n o Gon z a l e z , fo rs e n t e n c i n g .

THEMR.MR.THE

COURT: Good morn i n g , Coun s e l .HUFTALEN: Good morn i n g , you r Hono r .BOWNES: Good mo r n i n g , you r Hono r .COURT: Coun s e l , if you wou ld e n t e r

a p p e a r a n c e s f o r th e r e c o r d , p l e a s e ?gov e r nmen t ?

For t h e

c o r r e c t ?

MR.

MR.THE

HUFTALEN: Arno l d Hu f t a l e n , you r Honor .BOWNES: Dav id Bownes f o r Mr. Gonz a l e z .COURT: And you a r e Mr. Gonza l e z ; i s t h a t

MR. GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.THE COURT: You ' r e go i n g to have to speak up

so I can h e a r you .MR. GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.THE COURT: A ll right, and Mr. Gonz a l e z , how

o ld a r e you now?MR. GONZALEZ: 31 .THE COURT: And have you r e c e i v e d a copy o f

th e r e v i s e d p re s e n te nc e investigation r e p o r t ?MR. GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.


3/48

it?THE COURT: And y o u ' v e had a c h a n c e to r e a d

3

MR.THE

GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.COURT: Have you had an o p p o r t u n i t y t o

d i s c u s s it w i t h you r c o u n s e l ?MR. GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.THE COURT: And do you u n d e r s t a n d why you ' r e

h e re to d ay ?MR. GONZALEZ: Ye s , sir.THE COURT: Have you u s ed any d r ug s o r any

a l c o h o l i n th e p a s t 24 hou r s ?MR. GONZALEZ: No, sir.THE COURT: A ll right. I f i n d this d e f e n d a n t

i s c omp e t e n t to be s e n t e n c e d . Do you a u t h o r i z e Mr.Bownes to s p e a k f o r you d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f thisp r o c e e d i n g ?

MR. BOWNES: I b e l i e v e I am, you r Hono r .THEMR.THE

COURT: I s that c o r r e c t ?GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.COURT: You may be s e a t e d . Thank you

v e r y much . You can be s e a t e d , Mr. Bownes . Does t:hegove r nmen t h av e o b j e c t i o n s that t h e y wi sh to pu r s u e a tthis p o i n t ?

MR. HUFTALEN: Your Hono r , t h e gov e rnmen t h asone o b j e c t i o n . We filed a memo on it relating to


4/48

whe th e r o r n o t g u i d e l i n e s e c t i o n 2A2 .2 s h ou l d be u s e d ,a s oppo s ed t o 2A2 . 4 .

It 's t h e same o b j e c t i o n that we made In th etwo prior related s e n t e n c i n g s . The Cou r t h as r u l e da g a i n s t u s . We have no t h i n g further t o offer o t h e rt h an wha t h a s be en i n c l u d e d i n th e memo.

4

THE COURT: A l l right. Thank you . The

I refer specifically to th er e s p o n s e to that o b j e c t i o n .entirely correct

gov e r nmen t is correct. Th a t o b j e c t i o n is o v e r r u l e d .p r o b a t i o n officer'sThe p r o b a t i o n officer is

Now, Mr. Bownes ,o b j e c t i o n s that you wishs e n t e n c in g p ro ce du re .

let's ru n t h r o ugh you rto p u r s u e a s p a r t o f t h e

MR. BOWNES: Yes . I wish t o pu r s u e all o f

I t h i n k some o f t h o s e o b j e c t i o n sr e f e r e n c e i n t o t h e final

th e o b j e c t i o n s wi t hw i t h r e s p e c t to th einitial disclosures.were i n c o r p o r a t e d by

r e s p e c toriginal

t o that wep r e s e n t e n c e

p r e s e r v ejust

by p a r a g r a p h , in someMr. Gon z a l e z ' s r e s p o n s e

p r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t andi n c o r p o r a t e d p a r a g r a p hi n s t a n c e s , In t e rm s o f

addendum . Tho s e were

to someo f th e o f f e n s e c o n d u c t that was o u t l i n e d in th einitial disclosures.

I 'm talking a b o u t t h e I 'm n o t t a l k i n g


5/48

a bou t th e o f f e n s e when I 'm talking a b o u t t h eo f f e n s e c o n d u c t , I 'm talking a b o u t t h e p a r a g r a p h s inth e report, basically 13 , e t a I , and we made specifico b j e c t i o n s to e a c h o f t h o s e relative p a r a g r a p h s , andt h o s e objections, fo r t h e mos t part, a r e i n c o r p o r a t e di n t o t h e addendum wi t h r e s p e c t to t h o s e specificallegations.

THE COURT: So t h e addendum to t h ep r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t lists t e n o b j e c t i o n s that you ' r ep u r s u i n g ; is that c o r r e c t ?

5

wi t h r e s p e c tg r oup e d t h e s eg r oup i n g and

t h i n k a b o u t it,t o t h e way t h a tc h a r g e s , and I

how t h ey d id it

a l s oMR.

a s IBOWNES: The r e a re t e n o b j e c t i o n s . I 'm

I 'm pu r s u i n g an o b J e c t i o nth e p r o b a t i o n r e p o r tt h i n k that th e r u l e s o fwere b a s e d upon th e

principle that t h e r e were two v i c t im s ; that is, th eU.S . Gove r nmen t and t h e U.S . Ma r s h a l s , and I t h i nkt h a t a b s e n t thatgo e s on , e x c e p tDepa r tmen t, and

distinction t h e r e is no g r oup i n g t h a ti n th e a n a l y s i s o f t h e P r o b a t i o nso that th e g ro u p in g and I d o n ' t

t h i n k I articulated that, J u dg e .THE COURT: I 'm n o t s u r e I und e r s t a n d wha t

y o u ' r e s a y l n g , either.MR. BOWNES: The g r oup l n g t h e g r oup ,

p s eudo Coun t Two B and Coun t A, i n t e rm s o f how


6/48

they're c o u n t e d . Th e r e ' s a n additional i s it a

6

h a l f a p o i n t a s s i g n e d b e c au s e o f t h e r u l e s o f g r oup i n gt h a t a re used b y th e P r o b a t i o n Depa r tmen t ?

M S. ELWORTHY: It results in a h a l f a p o i n t ,y e s .

MR. BOWNES: A h a l f a p o i n t i n c r e a s e , and t h erationale f o r that is that t h e s e c o u n t s wou l d n ' t beg r oup e d i n thati n c r e a s e if t h eon l y one v i c t i m ,v i c t im s , t h e U .S

w a y . The r e wou ld be n o h a l f a p o i n tP r o b a t i o n Depa r tmen t had identifiedb u t b e c a u se t h e y identified t w oGove rnmen t and t h e U.S . Mar s h a l s

I t h i n k I've g o t this rightt w o v i c t im s , th e n th e y g r oup

b e c a u s e t h e y identified

i n th e manne r t h a t t h eyd id and c o m e u p wi t h a h a l fo f t h e b a s e l e v e l o f f e n s e ,Gon z a l e z ' s position is that

a p o in t i n c r e a s e inand my position ist h e U.S . M a r s h a l 's

t e rm sM r.

Of f i c eand t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Gove rnmen t a re one and th e s a m eThe r e reallyin fact, and

lS a distinction w i t h o u t any r e a l b a s i sthat, t h e r e f o r e , t h e g r o u p i n g r u l e s t h a t

t h e y a p p l i e d f o r that h a l f p o i n t i n c r e a s e lS imp r op e r .I t h i n k that's t h e on ly a d d i t i o n a l o b je c t i o n t h a t Ih a v e n ' t articulated.

TH E C OUR T: So t h e t e n that a r e s e t f o r t h ,p l u s this one?

MR. BOWNES P l u s t h e on e . I sort o f f l e s h e d


7/48

o u t th e d o u b l e j e o p a r d y a r g umen t , b u t I d o n ' t t h i nkthat's a s e n t e n c i n g g u id e l i n e i s s u e i n t e rm s o f th ea c tu a l a n a l y s i s as emp loyed . I gu e s s that wha t Iwou ld like to do I s e e th e y b ro u g h t th e guns I n .

THE COURT: I 'm go in g to listen to you ons e n t e n c i n g . R i g h t now I just wan t t o d e a l wi t ho b j e c t i o n s h e r e . I 'm t r y i n g t o be clear.

MR. BOWNES: Okay .THE COURT: You have t e n o b j e c t i o n s I se e

listed on t h e addendum; p l u s you just i n d i c a t e d ana d d i t i o n a l o b j e c t i o n . Do you have anym ore?

MR. BOWNES: The additional Ob j e c t i o n t h a t Ijust articulated I t h i n k I've o b j e c t e d i n th ep r o b a t i o n r e p o r t let me just be clear t h a t youcan't that p seudo c o u n t that Coun t A and p s eudoCoun t B can't be treated a s s ep a r a te c o n v ic t i o n s . It h i n k I've articulated that o b j e c t i o n , and I want t obe s u r e . They can't be treated a s you can't treatthem a s p s e udo c o u n t s , especially after App r e nd iv e r s u s New J e r s e y b e c au s e we t a k e t h e p o s i t i o n thatt h e a p p r o p r i a t e g u i d e l i n e to u se is t h e h a r b o r i n g afugitive, 18 U.S .C . 1071 , and I t h i n k I've s u bm i t t e d a

7

brief memoo b j e c t tomakes wi th

w i t h r e s p e c t to that analysis,t h e f a c t u a l assertions that t h er e s p e c t to its r e q u e s t fo r an

and wegov e rnmen t

upward


8/48

v a r i a n c e f o r th e g u i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e .THE COURT: Any o t h e r o b j e c t i o n s ?MR. BOWNES: I t h i n k that c o v e r s it. I f I

8

mis s ed s om e th in g , I 'm s u r e I ' ll let you know.THE COURT: Thank you . Your o b j e c t i o n s a re

o v e r r u l e d wi t h r e g a rd to th e o b je c t i o n s s e t f o r t h inth e addendum . I i n c o r p o r a t e t h e p r o b a t i o n officer'sr e s p o n s e to e a ch o f t h o s e o b j e c t i o n s and a c c e p t theirr e sp o n se in t e rm s o f its r e a s o n i n g . I t h i n k th ep r o b a t i o n officer's r e s p o n s e is entirely c o r r e c t .

A ll right. Does t h e gov e r nmen t have anyw i t n e s s e s t h ey wish to p r e s e n t a s part o f th es e n t e n c i n g p r o c e d u r e ?

MR. HUFTALEN: We do n o t .THE COURT: Mr. Bownes , do you have any

w i t n e s s e s that you wish to p r e s e n t who may wi sh top r e s e n t to t h e Cou r t ?

hasMR. BOWNES: I und e r s t a n d that

o t h e r letters that he wou ld like toMr. Gonza l e zp r e s e n t . I s

t h a t right?MR.MR.THE

GONZALEZ:BOWNES:COURT: I

I was p la n n in g to r e a d t h em .You ' r e go i n g to r e a d t hem?h a v e , just fo r t h e r e c o r d ,

r e c e i v e d a letter f rom Jo s e G on z a le z , which Ir e v i ewed , and a numbe r o f do cumen t s f rom th e Armed


9/48

S e r v i c e s whi ch indicate citations and r e c ommenda t i on s .

9

MR. BOWNES; Th e r e s h o u l d have been o t h e rletters f rom Co r i n n a Coope r that we fo rw ard ed to th eP r ob a t i o n Dep a r tm e n t . M r. Hea r i n g t o n

TH E C OUR T: L e t me finish, M r . Bownes .MR. BOWNES: Okay .TH E C OUR T: Ros ema r i e Ha rvey , M i k e

Hea r i n g t o n , Ba r b a r a Cummings , Co r i n n a Coope r

f rom t h e C o m m a n d e ritation

MR . BOWNES:TH E COURT:

Yes .and J o s e Gonz a l e z , p l u s a

In Ch i e f o f t h e P a c i f i cF l e e t and Jeffrey Dub i n ,th e A r m y , d a t e d J u l y 1 ,

MR. BOWNES: Iletters.

S h o p O f f i c e r , D epa r tm en t o f' 0 6 . A n y o t h e r s ?b e l i e v e M r . Gonza l e z has o t h e r

TH E C OUR T:allocution.

I w i l l listen to h i m du r i n g

MR. BOWNES;TH E C OUR T:

a d d i t i o n a l letters,now .

Okay .If y o u wish

I ' ll r e c e i v eto file anythem and r ev i ew them

I t h i n k he wou ld like to filet h em ,

t h em ,

MR. BOWNES:J u dg e .

TH E C OUR T:I'll t a k e t h em .

A llIf

right. If he wi s h e s toh e wan t s t o r e a d t h em ,

fileI ' 11


10/48

10

listen t o him du r i n g allocution. It 's up to you .MR. BOWNES: Mr. Gonza l e z w i l l r e ad t h em .

t o s e n t e n c e ,e a rTHE COURT: Th a t ' s perfectly

f rom t h e gove rnmen t wi t h r e g a r df i n e . Le t me

p l e a s e .MR. HUFTALEN: Thank you , you r Hono r . Very

briefly. The gov e r nmen t respectfully r e q u e s t s t h a tt h e Cou r t impo s e a s e n t e n c e in this c a s e which is an o n - g u i d e l i n e s e n t e n c e o f t e n y e a r s The b a s i s fo rth e gov e r nmen t ' s r e q u e s t is

N o tw i th s t a nd in g th etrial, which t h e gov e r nmen t

f o l l ow s :sd e f e n d a n t ' s t e s t imony a t

sUbmi t s was p e r j u r i o u s inth e least o f wh ich was h i so te s p e c t s ,fumbe r

d e n i a l in any activities wi t h direct v i o l e n c e t o anylaw e n f o r c em e n t officers, and n o tw i t h s t a n d i n g t h ef a c t u a l assertions made by Mr. Bownes in h i s p l e a d i n g sthat th e d e f e n d a n t is a p e a c e f u l man , came to NewHampsh i r e f o r no r e a s on o t h e r t h a n p e a c e f u lobjectives, th e d e f e n d a n t is no t a p e a c e f u l man.

The e v i d e n c e in this c a s e , a s th e Cou r t isth e mu l t i -w e e k trial,

and some o f this

was e x p e l l e d a t th e agef am i l y , wh ich h a s

we l l - awa r e f rom sitting t h r o u ghestablished that this d e f e n d a n twas established t h r o u gh h i s ownd e f e n d a n t failed in s c h o o l ando f 15 . The d e f e n d a n t started a

t e s t imony th e


11/48

resulted in less t h an perfect c i r c um s t a n c e s t o d a y .The d e f e n d a n t testified c o n c e r n i n g h i s

numerou s j o b s that he he l d and p u t a g l o s s on t h a tseries o f j o b s imp l y i n g that h i s failure to ho l d a jo bf o r more t h an s i x mon th s was somehow th e fault o f eachemp l o y e r .

The d e f e n d a n t j o i n e d th e Navy and c l a im s t h a the was an a dm i r a l s eaman in th e Navy ; y e t th e r e c o r d so f th e Navy clearly reflect that he was r e q u e s t e d tol e a v e th e Navy b e c a u s e o f fitness issues.

The d e f e n d a n t t h e n t r a v e l e d t o th e Brownp r o p e r t y in New Hampsh i r e . He traveled to th e Brownp r o p e r t y and b r o u g h t wi t h him two gun s , one o f whichwas a s em i - a u t oma t i c assault rifle. I b e l i e v e it wasa Be r e t t a . It was i n t r o d u c e d a t trial I have ith e r e . I 'm no t go i ng t o show th e Cou r t a g a i n . TheCou r t knows e x a c t l y wha t weapon s Mr. Gonza l e z b r o ugh tf rom Tex a s . He b r o u g h t that assault rifle and heb r o ugh t a handgun .

He wen t to th e Browns wi t h t h o s e weapons , andwh i l e a t t h e Browns he pu r c h a s e d a 50 caliber rifle,wh ich is a l s o in th e cou r t r o om t o d a y , wh ich was a l s oi n t r o d u c e d a s a full e x h i b i t a t trial

The .5 0 caliber rifle is a rifle wi t h a r a ngeo f more t h a n a mi l e . The r e were i n c e n d i a r y r o u nd s .


12/48

12

The r e wer e a rmo r p i e r c i n g r ound s f o r that .50 caliberrifle f ound a t t h e Browns .

Gerha r d

l e n g t h yWhen he

Tha t gun was a t t h e Browns f o r ao f t im e . Un t i l th e d e f e n d a n t left.a s th e Cou r t knows f rom th e trial, Mr.

p e r i o dleft,wen t ou t and pu r c h a s e d a r e p l a c emen t .5 0 caliberrifle.

At t h e t ime th e s e a r c h was c o ndu c t e d o f t h eBrown p r o p e r t y , th e two rifles were f ound in p l a c e .Mr. Ge r h a r d ' s was on th e third f l o o r wi t h site andfiring lines.5 0 caliber,

o u t th e f r o n t o f th e h o u s e .wh i ch b e l o n g ed t o Mr. R i l e y ,

Thewas

o t h e rf ound on

th e s e cond f l o o r o v e r l o o k i n gc o v e r i n g all a c c e s s bo t h

th e ba ckf r o n t and

o f th ebac k.

hou s e

Th i s d e f e n d a n t even failed in h i s a t t emp t s top r e v e n t v i o l e n c e a t th e Browns , a s he's failed a te v e r y t h i n g he ha se v e n t . He had anwas no t until he

done ina r g umen thad been

h i s lifewi t h Mr.t h e r e f o r

up until thisBrown , b u t t h a ts e v e r a l mon th s .

He had an a r g umen t wi t h Mr. Brown wh i ch r e s u l t e d int h e d e f e n d a n t l e a v i n g , and a l t h o u g h t h e r e was sometalk in th e r e c o r d b e f o r e trial that that wou ldsomehow constitute wi t h d r awa l f rom th e c r im i n a lactivity, it d id no t , and that was no t p u rsu ed a ttrial by t h e d e f e n s e . The d e f e n d a n t d id n o th in g to


13/48

13

law

many o fh i s

t o alerti t hd raw f rom t h e c o n s p i r a c y , d id n o t h i n ge n f o r c emen t o f th e d ang e r that f a c e d t h em ,which w ere c o n t r i v e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t andc o - c o n s p i r a t o r s .

What t h e d e fe n d an t d id was he b r o u g h tv i o l e n c e in h i s mind to th e Browns . He testified a ttrial and I v e r y g e n e r a l l y p a r a p h r a s e t h a t hewas a man o f p e a c e and that he i n t e n d e d no v i o l e n c ecome t o anyone wh i l e he was a t t h e Browns .

H is own s t a t em e n t s , which were p l a y ed by wayo f a v id eo ta p e , h in te d t o you that he was wh i l e a t th eBrown p r o p e r t y belies that he was a man o f pe a c e o rt h a t he d id n o t a t t emp t v i o l e n c e .

As th e p r o b a t i o n officer h a s specificallyno t e d i n p a r a g r a p h 18 o f th e p r e s e n t e n c e investigationr e p o r t , th e d e f e n d a n t s a i d and a g a i n , I p a r a p h r a s e ,a l th o u g h th e PSI quo t e s it directly we ' r e h e r e .We ' r e a rmed . They , th e Fed s , won ' t come in b e c au s et h ey know we r e a rmed and t h ey know o f ou r militarytraining.

No t h i n g can be drawnwhich was made voluntarily byto th e Internet, o t h e r t h an he

f rom that s t a t em en t ,th e d e f e n d a n t and po s t e dand o t h e r s wi t h him

and th e gov e r nmen t h as s u bm i t t e d to t h e P ro b a t io nDepa r tmen t u n d e r h i s c o n t r o l i n t e n d e d t o do


14/48

14

v i o l e n c e i n t h e e v e n t th e U.S . Mar s h a l S e r v i c e o ro t h e r s wo r k i n g wi t h them a t t emp t e d to arrest Edwardand E l a i n e Brown .

Th i s d e f e n d a n t sits b e f o r e you t o d a y , Is u bm it , in c omp l e t e d e n i a l that he's engaged in anyc r im i n a l activity wha t s o e v e r . He ' s a d a ng e r ou si n d i v i d u a l . He h a s military training that he b r o u g h tto b e a r in t h e Brown p r o p e r t y and on t h e Brownp r o p e r t y . He s h a r e d h is military training. He s h a r e dh i s know ledge , which lS e x t e n s i v e , o f weapons f o r th epu r po s e o f p r e v e n t i n g t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s Mar s h a lS e r v i c e f rom c a r r y i n g o u t their l aw f u l d u t i e s o farresting Edward and E l a i n e Brown, f o r whom v a l i darrest wa r r a n t s were i s s u e d by this Cou r t . Thed e f e n d a n t is no t h i n g if he is n o t a v i o l e n t man whoi n t e n d e d v i o l e n c e .

He testified that he came to New Hampsh i r eand a g a i n I p a r a p h r a s eb e l i e v e d this wou ld be

g e n e r a l l y b e c a u s et h e n e x t Ruby Ridge .

heHe s a i d

he was fearful that th e gov e r nmen t wou ld i n t e r v e n ewi t h v i o l e n c e ; y e t he came and he b r o u g h t guns and hep u r c h a s e d additional weapons wh i l e he was h e r e .

I s u bm i t that th e e v id e n c e in this ca s ed emon s t r a t e s that he i n t e n d e d to c au s e v i o l e n c e . Hecame h e re w i th a specific intent to wreak v i o l e n c e .


15/48

15

He came h e r e wi t hweapons which w ereand p o s i t i o n e d i n

weapons and p u r c h a s e d a d d i t i o n a lno t o n ly c a p a b l e o f b u t were r e a dysu ch a way to c a u s e v i o l e n c e and

d e a th to i n n o c e n t law e n f o r c emen t officers.Dur i ng h i s direct t e s t imon y much to th e

s u r p r i s e o f t h e gove r nmen t he a dm i t t e d th egov e r nmen t s u bm i t t e d sufficient f a c t s to c o n v i c t himo f a P i n k e r t o n liability t h e o r y wi t hdestructive d e v i c e . No destructive

r e s p e c t to ad e v i c e c h a r g e s

have been b r o u g h t a g a i n s t this d e f e n d a n t b e c a u s e th e

destructive d e v i c e s on t h e p r o p e r t y ,Cou r t w i l l recall du r i n g h i s directs a i d that Edw ard B row n, wh i l e I was

s u g g e s t thatp la c em en t o f

gov e r nmen t

t e s t imon y

th eb u t

a t

o rtov i d e n c e

manu f a c t u r eanyt h en

g a t h e roi n v o l v e das

un ab l ehe

was

het h eu r e'm

p r o p e r t y , handed h im wha t a pp e a r e d to beI p a r a p h r a s e a p r o t o t y p e f o r th e s p r i n gBownes t h e n showed h im t h e s p r i n g gun s , t h ed e v i c e s , that were a dm i t t e d a t trial, and

Browna g a i n

gun s . Mr.destructive

t h eand

he s a i d , y e s , similar t o this bu t slightly differenr.He s a i d Mr. Brown h and ed it t o h im and a sked

h im if he c ou l d c o n s t r u c t t h e s e , and h i s an swe ra g a i n inb e c au s ewas . It

p a r a p h r a s e wa s , yes, I c a n , b u t I wo n r tI 'm a g a i n s t mine s . T h a t ' s e x a c t l y wha t itwas an a n t i - p e r s o n n e l mine d e s ig n e d to be


16/48

16

t r i g g e r e d r emo t e l y and kill law e n f o r c em e n t wh i l e t h e ywa lked t h r o u gh th e Brown p r o p e r t y .

He didn't a t that p o i n t wi t hd r aw f rom th ec o n s p i r a c y and tell law e n f o r c emen t that in a d d i t i o nto th e f i r e a rm s , th e rifles and h a ndgun s that weret h e r e , and In a d d i t i o n to th e gunpowde r bombs and wha te l s e was on th e p ro p e r t y , t h e r e a l s o e x i s t e da n t i - p e r s o n n e l min e s

I n s t e a d , hethat t h ey c o u l d be killed wi t h .handed it ba ck t o Mr. Brown

was and wha t h i sby h i s a c t i o n s .

knowingintent

wha t Mr. Brown ' swas , bo t h e x p r e s s

Th i s d e f e n d a n t

men t a l stateand imp l i e d

is a violent man . He ' s a

d ang e r o u s man,c o n c e r n i n g t h eirrespective o fcalculation t o

and n o tw i t h s t a n d i n g wha t th e PSI s ay sg u i d e l i n e calculations and no twha t th e Cou r t f i n d s th e gu i d e l i n e

b e , t h e gove rnmen t s u bm i t s that und e rTitle 18 , Se c t i o n 3553 ( a ) , and t h e f a c t o r s enume r a t edtherein, this Cou r t s h o u l d s e n t e n c e t h e d e f e n d a n t ,i n d e p e n d e n t o f th ee x c e s s o f wha t e v e r

g u i d e l i n e s , to a s e n t e n c eth e gU i d e l i n e calculation

f a r i nin th e

PSI and as f ound by th e Cou r t is.The gov e r nmen t s u bm i t s that a s e n t e n c e o f t e n

y e a r sthis

o r 120c a s e by

mon t h s , which c o u l dimpo s i n g a s e n t e n c e

beo f

a c c omp l i s h e d60 mon th s on

ineach

o f th e two c o u n t s o f c o n v i c t i o n , one c o n s e c u t i v e t o


17/48

17

I gu e s s

th e o t h e r , is an a p p r o p r i a t e s e n t e n c e i n this c a s e top r o t e c t o t h e r s f rom this d e f e n d a n t , t o p u n i s h h im , andto d e t e r others. Thank you .

THE COURT: Thank you . Mr. Bownes?MR. BOWNES: Thank you , you r Hono r .

I wan t t o start a t th e tail end and s imp l y reiterate.In this c a s e f i v e y e a r s i s t h e maximum s e n t e n c e that'sa l l owed f o rwi t h r e s p e c ttreat Coun t

t h o s e r e a s o n s articulated in myt o how you treat Coun t Two and

Th r e e , b u t I t h i n k we can gu e s s

o b j e c t i o n show youwhy th e

j u r y c o u l d r e a c h no d e c i s i o n . We can come to somer e a s o n a b l e c o n c l u s i o n s a bou t their verdict in thisma t t e r .

Th r e e .r e g a r di th

Th e i r

Th e i r

Th r e e ,violence,

wast

Coun t

way

t oi n v o l v e

Coun tt h e

r e s p e c td o e s n ' tt

wi t h

ch a r g e f o rCoun t Two,o

924 ( c )

verdict,abetting.

noand

wasa i d i n gt h e r e

was

v e r d i c tand

instructed by th e Cou r t and I t h i n k I'vearticulated that a l l owed them to either c o n v i c twi t h wha t p r o b a t i o n c a l l e d Coun twh i ch is 12 (a ) o f t h e i n d i c tm e n tth e i n d i c tm e n t Tha t is Coun t 1 .

A, whi ch is reallyp a r a g r a p h 12 ( a ) o f

P a r a g r a p h 12 (b ) o fth e i n d i c tm e n t , whi ch t h ey call p seudo c o u n t B, i s inf a c t Coun t Th r e e . The l a n gu ag e is t h e s ame . Thee l emen t s a re th e same wi t h r e s p e c t t o th o s e coun t s


18/48

18

The j u r y c ou l d n o t r e a c h a verdict wi t h

fairr e a c h

ini r e a rmt h e y c anno t

I t h i n k it

aand

u s i n gasc h a r g e ,

which92 4 ( c )

5 ,ai t h

Coun te s p e c t toc o n n e c t i o na verdict wi t h r e s p e c t to Coun t 1 , soto s a y f rom t h e v e r d i c t t h a t t h e y r e a c h e d and th einstructions that you gave is that t h e y came t o ad e c i s i o n wi t h r e s p e c t t o p a r a g r a p h 12 ( b ) o f th ei n d i c tm e n t , a s instructed and Coun t Th r e e , t h e a i d i n gand a b e t t i n g c h a r g e s , neither one o f which i n v o l v e t h euse o f f o r c e .

The g o v e r nme n t ' s memo and their r e q u e s t i sb a s e d upon wha t I t h i n k I d e s c r i b e d du r i n g th e triala s literally a to n o f e v i d e n c e , T a n n e r i t e , bombs ,weapon s , all f ound in Oc t o b e r o f 2007 when t h e ys e a rc h e d th e Brown r e s i d e n c e and arrested h im .Ac t u a l l y , t h ey arrested him first and th e n s e c u re dw a r r a n t s f o r th e s e a r c h o f th e r e s i d e n c e .

I know th e Cou r t recalls that I s p e n tc o n s i d e r a b l e t ime wi th th e v i d eo o f th e day t h a t t h egov e r nmen t wen t i n t o th e Brown r e s i d e n c e compa r i ng t h ec o n d i t i o n o f th e p r em is e s t h e n in Oc t o b e r to th ec o n d i t i o n o f th e p r em i s e s in th e Ap r i l t h r o u g h Junet ime f r ame when Mr. Gonza l e z was there.

I s p e n t c o n s i d e r a b l e t ime wi t h I t h i n k it wasGove r nmen t ' s Ex h i b i t I o r 2 , whi ch was th e d i a g r am


19/48

19

o f a l a r g e d i a g r a m o f th e p r e m i s e s w i t h all th eb o m b s marked o u t b y t h e g o v e r n m e n t and wi th M s.C a n a r i o and M r . J o h n s o n and M s. C o o p e r . I wen t o v e rspecifically wha t t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f th e p r e m i s e s w a sin t h e A p r i lt h e r e to s h o wn o t a n a rmed

to June t ime f r ame w h e n M r . Gonza l e z w a st h e stark difference. T h i s p l a c e w a s

fortress wi th r e s p e c t t o this m a t t e r .M r . Gonz a l e z w a s o u t o f th e B r o w n r e s i d e n c e

b y June 2 3 rd o f 2 0 0 7 . T h a t is a g i v e n fact. Hedidn't i n v o l v e h i m s e l f wi th any o f th e activitiesthere. He a d v i s e d p e o p l e n o t to g o there. Tha t itw a s d a n g e r o u s . T h a t w a s h i s t e s t im o ny . Th a t w a so t h e r t e s t i m o n y d u r i n g th e c o u r s e o f th e trial. Hed id n o t em b r a c e

TH E COURT:MR. BOWNES:TH E COURT:MR. BOWNES

Wh y w a s itPa rdon?

Why w a s itI b e l i e v e

d a n g e r o u s , M r . B o w n e s ?

d a n g e r o u s ?a s I t h i n k h e

t h e y would l i k e toa b o u t h i m be ing s h o w n

that and t h a t that'sthat t h e y c o u l d u se

wh a c k o , and do i ng t h i n g sI t h i n k th e t e s t im o n ylight o n t h e t e s t i m o n y

s p r i n g gun o r s o m e t h i n g like

testified, he b e l i e v e d that M r . B r o w n w a s k ind o f ah e s h o u l d n ' t have beene r k ,

d o i n g .p u t thisae v i d e n c e that h e w a s p a r t o fthat as e v i d e n c e f o r a destructive d e v i c e c h a r g e .


20/48

Theybu t

20

h a v e n ' t b ro u g h t th e destructive d e v i c e c h a r g e ,that's one o f t h e s i g n a l s he gets. L ik e wha t a r e

you do i n g ? You d o n ' t u se t h o s e t h i n g s You d o n ' t u sethem f o r that p u r p o s e . You d o n ' t do it. I 'm no tgo i n g t o h e l p you . It's soon after that t h a t hel e a v e s t h e Brown r e s i d e n c e and he commun i c a t e s that,as I t h i n k I wen t th ro u g h th e t e s t imon y wi t h h im.

Al t h ough we didn't a sk f o r an a c t u a lw i t h d r awa l instruction, I d o n ' t t h i n k that would havebeen wise u n d e r t h e c i r c um s t a n c e s , b u t he commun i c a t e s

b u t he commun i c a t e s

it to Co r i n n a Coope r .hat toI 'm no t

c o n t a c t

R i l e y .s u r e hewi t h Mr.

He commun i c a t e shad actually any

Ge rha rd a t all,c o n t a c t more

it to a dozen individuals. He ' s made h is own p l a n s .He ' s left t h e Brown r e s i d e n c e . He ' s done sometraveling, and he's gone b ack to Texa s

He met up wi t h Mr. AI -Oboud i , and h e ' sp la n n in g to go b ack toTh a t ' s wha t he's done ,

I r a q on a p e a c e mi s s i o n .and wha t t h e Browns do and wha t

o c cu r s a t t h e r e s i d e n c e is s ome t h i n g that he hasc o u n s e l e d against.

THE COURT: Was he p l a n n i n g t o b r i n g f i r e a rm st o I r a q on t h e p e a c e mi s s i o n ?

MR. BOWNES:do i n g that, J u dg e .

I d o n ' t b e l i e v e he wou ld be


21/48

21

THE COURT: I g u e s s that's t h e q u e s t i o n t h eg o v e r n m e n t is a s k i n g lS, how doe sman o f p e a c e b r i n g f i r e a r m s w i t h

somebody who i s ahim t o this l o c a t i o n ?

MR. BOWNESp o s s e ss in g f i r e a rm stestified

B e i ng a man o f peac e anda r e n o t contradictory. He

w h e t h e r they'rebstractTHE COURT: I 'm n o t a s k i n g you

contradictory.i n

I

t h ewou ld like

aMR. BOWNES: I 'm telling youTHE COURT: J u s t a s e c o n d . I wou ld l i k e an

e x p l a n a t i o n o f th e p u r p o s e f o r b r i n g i n g t h e f i r e a r m sto this l o c a t i o n and th e p u r p o s e f o r p u rc h a s in g al o n g - r a n g e s n i p e r - t y p e rifle w h i l e a t th e l o c a t i o n .

MR. BOWNES: He testified, J udge let me goo v e r that. He testified that he was bo rn in A l i c e ,

two gun s thats e i z e d down

wer e

wer e

T e x a s . T ha to r h im.ha s gun s . T ha tt h r e e guns t h a t

h i s own p e r s o n a le reexa s

a way o f lifeT h a t e v e r y b o d y

s e i z e d th eA l i c e ,n

g u n s .gun s

hadT h a t

f am i l yi st h ewer e

gun s .He testified, and I s u b m i t t e d th e p o r t i o n s o f

t h et h a t

transcripthe didn't

w i t h r e s p e c t to t h eb r i n g them t h e r e f o r

.5 0th e

caliber g u n ,p u r p o s e o f

t h r e a t e n i n g p e o p l e . H e ' s a p e r s o n who u s e s gun s ,


22/48

22

likes g u n s and u s e s t h e m . L o ts o f p e o p l e do t h a tP o s s e s s i o n o f a gun , in and o f itself,

d o e s n ' t mean y o u ' r e a d a n g e r o u s p e r s o n . If that'strue, a lot o f p e o p l e a r e in t r o u b l e , and th e SecondAmendmen t is in some t r o u b l e , a l s o , b u t h i s t e s t i m o n ya b o u t t h o s e weapon s was clear, and you r Honor , if your emembe r , I s p e n t a c o n s i d e r a b l e amoun t o f t ime wi thr e s p e c t to Mr. Gonza l e z on th e i s s u e o f t h e s e gun s .Tha t was o u r d e f e n s e . Tha t he didn't u se them f o r th epu r po s e o f that was c l a i m e d in t h e i n d i c t m e n t .T h a t he was n o t he was n o t guilty o f th e 924 (c )c h a r g e . I s p e n t c o n s i d e r a b l e t i m e . I wen t o v e r eacho f t h e weapon s that wer e f ound a t th e r e s i d e n c e , go tan e x p l a n a t i o n f rom Mr. Gonza l e z w i t h r e s p e c t t o e a c ho f t h o s e we a pon s , g o t specific t e s t i m o n y wi t h r e s p e c tt o this p u r c h a s e o f th e .5 0 caliber weapon , specifict e s t i m o n y w i t h r e s p e c t to th e o t h e r two weapons t h a thave been h i s p e r s o n a l gun s that he's used f o ry e a r s , g o t p e r s o n a l knowledge o f , and you know t h a tall o f t h o s e gun s wer e r e c o v e re d in T e x a s . He didn'tl e a v e them t h e r e f o r th e Browns to arm t h e m s e l v e sw i t h . He t o o k them wi t h him when he left.

To i m pu t e that h e ' s d a n g e ro u s b e c a u s e h e ' sf a m i l i a r w i t h gun s that's h i s military trainingand that he h a s gun s , I t h i n k that


23/48

23

THE COURT: So y o u r position lS , Mr. Bownes ,that he didn't have th e weapons to d e t e r t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s M a rsh a ls o r law e n f o r c e m e n t f rom e x e c u t i n g th earrest w a r r a n t ; is that c o r r e c t ?

MR. BOWNES: T h a t ' s correct.THE COURT: Now, e x p l a i n to me th e v i d e o

l a n g u a g e let me q u o t e f rom it: The o n ly re a s o n t h egove rnme n t hasn't rolled in h e r e is b e c a u s e th e yknow t h ey have p e o p l e who have be en trained by their

a r e

so

use

t h a tlaw

they're

to

weapons

knowand

havee

and priorknow how

e n f o r c e m e n tawmilitaryand t h ey

ownb o t h

h e r e ,

been g i v e n a nd , yout h e y ' v e g o t weapons

who shows up .

their

oh ,

by

anyone

andliterallythat a r et h ey havemuch ,

killso

ton o t

weaponsit's

go i ng

th e

own militaryhe r e nowe n f o r c e m e n t

d e f e n d o u r s e l v e s b e c a u s e wend w e ' r e g o i n g toactually know wha ts e r i o u s situation.

is go ingT h i s is

o n . Youbasically

know this i s aa r e v o l u t i o n .

E x p l a i n that to me.

to th e trial, andecallMR.

ba c kBOWNES: Okay . I will.

I wan tI wan t you to

you to recall th ec r o s s -e x a m i n a ti o n and t h e p l a y i n g o f that s n i p p e t o fth e v i d e o . What I d id i n redirect e x a m i n a t i o n is Ip l a y e d it a g a i n , and when t h ey p l a y e d it i n c l o s i n g , Ig o t up and I p l a y e d it a g a i n b e c a u s e that's one


24/48

24

interpretation, b u t here's a n o t h e r interpretationand this is wha t he testified to and

e x p e r i e n c e is Waco andf o r ma r s h a l s .

came . H e 's c o n c e rn e d

Th a t ' s

f o r th e safetyRuby R idg e .

n o t u n l aw f u l .

this lSb e c au s e

He h as aTo ho l d

why heh isdistrustt h a t

belief is n o t u n l aw f u l . To ho l d a distrust f o r th eand I t h i n k I

is n o t un l aw f u lgov e r nmen t which he d ev e l o p edd ev e l o p ed i n t h e s e n t e n c i n g memowi t h r e s p e c t t o h i s c o n d u c t .

What h e ' s s a y i n g t h e r e is n o t that I 'm gOlngt o s h o o t O.S . ma r s h a l s . He ' s s imp l y e x p r e s s i n g h isl aw f u l right t o s a y , we have a right t o d e f e nd

o u r s e l v e s a g a i n s t t h e u se o f u n l aw f u l f o r c e , which iswha t he's one o f h is e x p e c t a t i o n s t h e use o fu n l aw f u l f o r c e .

He doesn't know New Hampsh i r e . In Texas itmay be an entirely different situation, and th ee v i d e n c e that he had and t h e e x p e r i e n c e that he hadwou ld s u p p o r t a belief that t h e U.S . ma r s h a l s , a tleast on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s i n h i s home state and ino t h e r a r e a s , a c t e d u n l aw f u l l y and used u n l aw f u l f o r c e ,

o f t h e trial, th ea t him wi t hr e a d t h a t who l e

and if you r e a dwe didn't p l a ywho l e s n i p p e t ,r e s p e c t to that

if you actuallyit d u r in g th e c o u r s eb e c au s e I wen t rights n i p p e t , b u t if you

listened I know


25/48

25

s p e e ch u p o n t h e r emembe r , t h e gov e r nmen t d o e s n ' tc o m e i n t o p o s s e s s i o n o f this until som e tim e InFeb r u a r y o f 2008 , and it 's n o t som e th in g wew h e n t h e Browns a r e even t h e r e In Oc t o b e r o fif y o u r e a d that entire i n t e r v i ew if y o u

k n o w a bou t2007 , b u t

r e a d th eentire i n t e r v i ew that h e g i v e s , he s p e ak s a bou t h isp h i l o s o p h i c a l beliefs. He sp e ak s a b o u t h i s distrustf o r th ei n c ome

t h i n g s .

gov e r nmen t . Het a x e s and w h y .

He v o i c e s h is

s p e a k s a b o u t h i s o ppo s i t i o nHe s p e ak s o n a numbe r o fFirst A m e n d m e n t con c e r n wi th

to

u n l aw f u l l y s h o o t

r e s p e c t to a number o f t h i n g s , andcan p u t r e a s o n a b l e I gu e s s thatif y o u s t e p ov e r h e r e , I 'm go i n g toyou , b u t that's n o t wha t h e s a i d .

y o uwha t

can pu t y o uh e ' s s a y i n g is

TH E COURT: L e t me se e if I und e r s t a n d wha ty o u 'r e s a y in g . You ' r e s a y i n g that if s omeone b e l i e v e sth e gov e r nmen t a c t e d i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y a t R u b y Ridg e ,t h e y have a right to b r i n g guns to a situation whereth e gov e r nmen t h a s a n arrest wa r r a n t f rom this c o u r tand wan t s to arrest a d e f e n d a n t ?p o s i t i o n ?

I s that you r

me t h e n ?

MR. BOWNES:TH E COURT:

Why wou ldMR . BOWNES:

N o .W h a t is it y o u ' r e

h e b r i n g guns?He s a i d h e had a

t r y i n g to tell

right to b r i n g


26/48

guns there. He didn't b r i n g guns t h e r e to t h r e a t e n

26

a nybody . Tha t was th e who l e f o c u s o f th e trial,J u dg e . It was t h e f o c u s o f t h e inability o f t h e J u r yto r e a c h a verdict.

THE COURT: How do you know t h a t ?MR. BOWNES I tried t h e c a s e . Tha t was my

f o c u s .THE COURT: I d o n ' t t h i n k any o f us were

sitting in th e j u r y room and a r e a b le to d e f i n e whyth e j u r y was hung on any o f t h e two ma t t e r s You cans u rm i s e , b u t you certainly know n o t h i n g more t h an Iknow a b o u t it.

MR. BOWNES: As I i n d i c a t e d , you can maker e a s o n a b l e a s s ump t i o n s , and here's a r e a s o n ab l ea s s ump t i o n .them an "or"

The way you instructed Coun t Two gaveThey c onv i c t e d him on Coun t Th r e e , th e

a i d i n g and abetting. Coun t 12 ( b ) , th e "o r " was th esame c h a r g e , a i d i n g and abetting. They hung on Coun t1, whi ch was th e u se o f f o r c e , which actually had th eu se o f f o r c e l a n g u a g e t h a t t h e y had to f i n d beyond ar e a s o n ab l e d o u b t , and t h e y hung on Coun t 5, whichmeans that t h e y had t o f i n d that he p o s s e s s e d af i r e a rm in f u r t h e r a n c e o f a c r ime o f v i o l e n c e . Theydidn't r e a c h a verdict wi th r e s p e c t to t h o s e so I sayit 's r e a s o n a b l e t o a s sume I know it 's s p e c u l a t i o n .


27/48

27

I know I can't g e t i n t o th e juror's mind s . I can't goi n t e r v i ew t h em . I can't f i n d o u t wha t th e v e r d i c twas , b u t it 's a r e a s o n a b l e s p e c u l a t i o n .

THE COURT: Does that mean that I 'mp r o h i b i t e d f rom mak ing that f i n d i n g a s p a r t o f mya n a l y s i s wi t h r e g a r d to s e n t e n c i n g ?

MR. BOWNES: From a l e g a l p e r s p e c ti v e , Id o n ' t t h i n k you can make f i n d i n g s and I d o n ' t wan tto g e t i n t o back i n t o J o n e s and Ca l i f o r n i a v e r s u sC unn ingham and th e i s s u e o f whe t h e rh is s e n t e n c e w i t h o u t a f i n d i n g by a

you can i n c r e a s ej u r y beyond a

r e a s o n a b l e d o u b t . You can make a c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g ,b u t it wou l d n ' t be a p p r o p r i a t e . It wou l d n ' t be t h ef a c t s a s t h e y really a r e .

I s u ppo s e you can make a c o n t r a r y f i n d i n g .You can a d o p t th e g o v e r nmen t ' s v e r s i o n o f wha t t h e yhave been pu s h i n g s i n c e day on e . You can do that.They ' r e still pu s h i n g it. Th e y ' r e still pu sh i n g thisdestructive d ev i c e c h a r g e a s if he's l o o k i n g a t it ands a y i n g , " I d o n ' t wan t to have a ny t h i n g to do wi th it",hooks him i n t o a destructive d e v i c e c h a rg e . T h e y 'r ep u s h i n g that. We 've been pu sh i n g ba ck on that ve ryi s s u e f rom day on e .

When this c a s e was s c h e du l e d to go to trialin J a n u a ry , I d id s ome t h i n g a little u n u s u a l . I filed


28/48

28

an e x t e n s i v e pretrial s t a t em e n t wi t h r e s p e c t to wha twas go i ng t o o c c u r i n this c a s e , and I laid Mr.Gon z a l e z ' s c a s e ou t on th e table e x a c t l y as Ip r e s e n t e d it a t trial. I d id that in J a n u a ry , and Ik ep t do i ng it.

So when I h e a r th e gov e rnm en t s ay o r t h eCou r t a sk t h e q u e s t i o n , is it r e a s o n a b l e to as sumet h a t he wen t t h e r e t o arm th e Browns and s h o o tma r s h a l s and u se f o r c e to d e f e n d t h em , I s uppo s e

b u t that's n o to f th e c a s e .c a s e f rom th e

c a s e ,

t h e o r yo f t h e

that's been their t h e o r y o f th ewha t h app en ed , and that was myTha t was Mr. Gon z a l e z ' s t h e o r yve ry b e g i n n i n g .

So I u rg e you no t to a d o p t t h e f a c t s a s pu tf o rwa r d by t h e gov e r nmen t wi t h r e s p e c t to this. We ' r et a l k i n g a b o u t two p e r s o n a l weapon s that he had f o r a

and you canho l d i n g this

he b r o u g h t wi t hw i t h him all o f

caliber

lo ng t im e thatthat he carriest a l k i n g a b o u t a

Texas

r emembe rWe' r e

A l i c e ,

dange r ou s ,

t im e .f rom

it's

th ehim

gun ,

s e e ,

upj u r y ,

this.5 0

h o l d i n gup t o th e

Ki n s e l l acaliber

Mr..5 0c o n v i c t him on th e 924 (c ) c h a r g e , which didn't o c c u r .

H is t e s t imony is: Th e y ' r e v a l u a b l e . I c o u l d

o p p o r t u n i t y .g e t it. I've a lway s wan t e d on e . It was an

I go t it. It was f o r my own p e r s o n a l


29/48

29

u s e , and when I left in J u n e , I t o o k it wi th me.Th e r e ' s no d i s p u t e that when he left in June

he t o ok it wi t h h im b e c au s e when t h e y arrested him inA l i c e , Texa s on Sep t embe r 12 , 2007 , t h e r e was th e 50caliber gun .

So I s u ppo s e that you can make a f i n d i n gconsistent wi t h th e g o v e r nmen t ' s c a s e . You can a l s omake a f i n d i n g consistent wi th th e t h e o r y o f d e f e n s ethat w e'v e a lw ay s u sed in this ma t t e r , and I th egov e r nmen t c l a im s i n s u p p o r t o f this, a s k ind o f abuttress to it, that he's a violent, d ang e r o u s man.

Your Hono r , a p a r t f rom h i s l im i te din v olv em en t w i th th e Browns and he's been foundguilty o f a i d i n gin v olv em en t w i th

and abetting. Apa r t f rom h isth e Browns , t h e r e isn't one i n s t a n c e

in t h e c o n d u c t o f this man ' s life that would l e a danybody to b e l i e v e that he was a violent,man. Qu i t e th e c o n t r a r y . You wou ld f i n dc h a r a c t e r and wha t he d id no t violent, n o t

d a ng e r ou sh i sd a ng e r ou s

When I sa y he was a man o f p e a c e , that'sb e c au s e that's th e life he l e d . When I a r gued t h a t t oth e j u r y , I had e v id e n c e to s u p p o r t it. I hadw i t n e s s e s and t e s t imon y . I had a p e a c e activist, Mr.Hea r i n g t o n , testify. I had Mr. Al -Oboud i testify.You h e a r d their t e s t imony a b o u t wha t k in d o f a man he


30/48

30

h i sh e ' sto

wha tor e s p e c ti t how

e d u c a t i o n ,history

t o h i st h e

s e r v i c e ,haveou

wha t he d id s i n c e he came ba ck f rom I r a q . Heov e r t h e r e a s a s u b c o n t r a c t o r , g o t disillusioned

came ba ck and started efforts a g a i n s t th e War in

militarybeenwen tand

is.

I r a q .You have a letter f rom Ba r b a r a Cummings wi t h

r e s p e c t t o h i s p e a c e activities. You have a p l e t h o r ao f i n f o rm a t i o n a p a r t f rom t h e s e t h r e e weapons andwe ' v e g l v e n you th e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r that t h a t tellsyou that Mr. Gonza l e z is n o t a violent man . Tha t h e ' sno t a d a n g e r o u s man. H e 's n e v e r a s s a u l t e d anyone .Neve r h u r t a nybody .wha t s o e v e r .

Neve r e ng a g e d in c r im i n a l c o n d u c t

Youin t h e memo,history. Noa c c o rd in g top e r c e n t .

know, if you use th e s tu d y that I citedhe is an A c a t e g o r y . No prior c r im i n a lprior arrest. H is risk o f r e c i d i v i sm ,t h e 2004 report, is s ome t h i n g l e s s t h an 7

So, y e s , we t a k e e x c e p t i o n to t h echaracterization that he b r o u g h t guns tor e s i d e n c e t o t h r e a t e n a nybody . We a lway sp r o v i d e d you wi t h that e x p l a n a t i o n du r i n go f h i s t e s t imon y . Th a t ' s all true, and Iwi t h i n f o rm a t i o n wi th r e s p e c t to who Mr.

t h e Brownhave . Weth e c ou r s ep r o v i d e d you

Gonz a l e z is,


31/48

31

a detailed a c c o u n t o f who he was , whe r e he came f romand wha t b r o u g h t him to th e Brown r e s i d e n c e in A p r i lo f ' 0 7 .

He wa s n ' t t h e r e to sh o o t U.S . ma r s h a l s o rt h r e a t e n t h em . He was t h e r e to s u p p o r t h i s own goodfaith belief o f th e wrongn e s s o f th e i ncome t a x l aw .He was t h e r e to u se t h e Brown r e s i d e n c e a s a fo rum f o rh i s beliefs, f o r h i s advoc a cy a g a i n s t th e War in I r a q ,f o r h i s adv o c a cy o f u r an i um d e p l e t i o n , f o r h is ownp r i v a t e c a u s e , and that's wha t he d i d , and t h a t wash i s t e s t imon y wi t h r e s p e c t t o th o s e issues.

I u n d e r s t a n d that th e gov e r nmen t relies onthis s n i p p e t f rom th e v i d e o t a p e . I t h i n k it 's a l s ofair, in t e rms o f t h e a r g umen t s that we were mak ing , Irelied on t hem f o r e x a c t l y th e o p po s i t e c on c lu s io n ,and e v e r y t ime t h ey p l a y ed it,

Apa r t f rom t h e wrongto t h e Brown r e s i d e n c e to armU.S . ma r s h a l s and he wa s n ' t

I p l a y e d it.c o n c l u s i o n that he wen tthem and f o r c i b l y resistc o n v i c t e d o f any o f

t h a t a p a r t f rom th e g o v e r nmen t ' s v e r s i o n o f this,wha t you have is an i n d i v i d u a l who is t h e r e f o r a ve rys h o r t t ime , f rom Ap r i l t odisassociates h im s e l f wi th

go there, d o e s n ' t go ba ckmove on wi t h h i s life and

June o f 2007 , who l e a v e s ,that, tells p eop l e n o t to

and makes h i s own p l a n s toh i s own p e a c e efforts, as


32/48

32

y o u 'v e h e a rd d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e t e s t im o ny .Th a t ' s wha t it is, and I am, o f c o u r s e , Mr.

G o nz ale z 's a dv o c a te . So in th e c o u r s e o f t h a ta dvo c a c y ,s t a t em en t

I tellthat he

you that t h e r e wa s n ' tmade wi th r e s p e c t to

one p e r j u r i o u sthis ma t t e r .

The e v i d e n c e that th e gov e r nmen t relies on lSthis v i d e o t a p e , and I d o n ' t know how t h e y s p i n thisdestructive d e v i c e that he l o o k ed a t and d i s a vowed ,b u t that's th e e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e y r e l y on . Th a t ' sall. I t h i n k that's a fair s ta t em e n t . Even Mr.Wo l f f e ,this.

I t h i n k , a g r e e d wi t hTha t was Mr. W o l f fe ' s

that wi t ht e s t imon y ,

r e s p e c t toc o n t r a r y t o

wha t ' s been p u t inbeen a r g u ed by t h ed o e s n ' t p u t C i r i n o

th e p r o b a t i o n r e p o r t and wha t ' sgov e r nmen t . Even Mr. Wol f f eGonz a l e z t h e r e to resist U.S .

ma r s h a l s wi t h f o r c e i n th e e x e c u t i o n o f their wa r r a n tI t h i n k all o f that's true.

I've o u t l i n e d in t h e memorandum in s u p p o r t o f

to call t h o s e t h i n g s . I 'm n o tt h i n k th e Cou r t knows wha t I 'mlast p a r a g r a p h s I h i g h l i g h t andg u i d e l i n e s in 5H, some o f whi chp r o h i b i t e d . Some o f whi ch we r ewh ich w ere e n c o u r a g e d .

talking a b o u t , andcite t h e specificwere f o rma l l y

d i s c o u r a g e d . Some

a downward v a r i a n c e that, I hop e , is th ee x a c t l y s u r e ,

r i g h tb u t I

way

th e

o f


33/48

33

The r e a re many f a c t o r s i n th e g u i d e l i n e st h ems e l v e s that sp e ak a b o u t who this man is and wha th e ' s done wi t h h i s life. It migh t n o t have been a

f o r Mr. G on za le z , b u t I gue s s heU.S . m a rs h a l ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , wi t h

d e c i s i o n

d e c i s i o n

t h e

t hem.no t

o fu p p o r tand I 'm

i ndecision,

Brownsw i s e

t h ea

toob een

to

f rom

haveo tthis

there,omes

w i s e

It maymaking

b e c au s es t amp o f some k i nd o f securitye x p e r i e n c e wi t h t h e military, andt h en and t h e y g o t it wrong now.

What youwas

h isfwrong

why het o l d

it

hen o t

g o th e yg e n i u s

Th a t ' syou .o ldeha that'sndh e r e ,

was t h e truth.

f o r Mr. Brown .He was n o t t h e r e to s e t up a fortressHe was t h e r e to be an a d v o c a t e , and

that's wha t he was .If you recall th e t e s t imon y , J udg e th e

t e s t imony f rom all t h e w i t n e s s e s who were t h e r e int h a t June t ime f r ame and t h e r e was even a j ambo r e e ,if you w i l l recall, on J u l y 13 t h after Mr. Gonza l e zleft t h e r e was none o f that m en t a l i t y . Tha t wasn o t wha t was go i n g on .

You have v i d e o s o f J a s on Ge rh a r d s e r v i n g U.S .ma r s h a l s o r l o c a l p o l i c e d e p a r tmen t s h ambu r g e r s . Itwas n o t a b u n k e r m en t a l i t y that was go i ng on . The r ewas n o t a s i e g e men t a l i t y that was ov e r c om ing th eBrown r e s i d e n c e .


34/48

34

I t h i n k t h e U.S . m a r s h a l s ' own d e s c r i p t i o n o fwha t o c c u r r e d was that their basically s u r v e i l l a n c e InA p r i l , May, i n t o th e e a r l y June t i m e f r ame was b e n i g n .It was c o v e r t . A f t e r th e arrest o f Dan R i l e y , itchanged a little in t e rm s o f t h e y were more n o t i c e a b l ewi th r e s p e c t to that, b u t still t h o u s a n d s o f p e o p l ecame h e r e , J u d g e . Thousand s o f p e o p l e came to th eJune 2 3 rd ja m bo re e I'll call it. Thousand s o f

he

h i st h i n k

and

j e r kand

p e o p l e came to t h e J u l y 1 4 th ja m b o re e . L o t s o f t h em ,a c c o rd in g to th e t e s t i m o n y , had w eapons so t h e y c o u l dl a w fu lly p o s s e ss . They didn't b r i n g th e weapons t os h o o t p e o p l e . They b r o u g h t t hem b e c a u s e th e yp e r s o n a l l y owned t h em .

I t h i n k that's an a c c u r a t e s t a t e m e n t wi thr e s p e c t t o wha t th e a t m o s p h e r e was a t th e Brownr e s i d e n c e , and when C i r i n o Gonz a l e z realizes t h a t Ed

andrown is n o t d o in g talking c r a z y , b e i n g ahe ha s t h e d i s a g r e e m e n t wi th h i s father t h e r eb r o t h e r - i n - l a w Romeo t h e r e you h e a r d that.t h e r e were i s s u e s there. T h a t ' s wh a t he d o e s ,d o e s n ' t lo o k b a c k . T h e r e ' s no e v i d e n c e that he d i d .

I 'm a s k i n g you t o s e n t e n c e Mr. Gonza l e z f o rth e man that he is. S e n t e n c e him f o r th e man yout h i n k he was b e t w e e n A p r i l and June o f 2007 , b u t ifyou l o ok a t h i s history, wha t he's done wi th h is life,


35/48

35

Gonza l e z

he'shat

e d u c a t i o n ,he ha s gone t h r o u gh

a c c u r a t e p i c t u r eno t th e p i c t u r e

that

g i v e s you anis, and it's

s t r u g g l e sthat

th eone ,

C i r i n oh i s

whoff o r

that th e gov e r nmen t ha s been p a i n t i n g s i n c e day oneand tried t o p a i n t d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f this trial.

I a sk that in light o f t h o s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n sand in light o f th e 3553 ( a ) f a c t o r s wi t h r e s p e c t toC i r i n o Gon z a l e z , th e p e r s o n , that t h e r e is no riskt h a t he's no t d a n g e r o u s . He ' s n o t there's no tan agenda t o h u r t anybody o r do anybody ha rm . Hereally is a man o f p e a c e . Th e r e ' s no need to pun i shhim more t h a n he's a l r e a d y been p u n i s h e d , and t h a t as e n t e n c e o f t ime s e r v ed is, in all respects,a p p r o p r i a t e . Thank you f o r you r t im e .

THE COURT: Thank you , Mr. Bownes . Mr.Gonz a l e z , a s t h e d e f e n d a n t b e f o r e this Cou r t fo rd e t e rm i n a t i o n and imp o s i t i o n o f s e n t e n c e , you ' r eentitled to and have a constitutional right to a d d r e s st h e C o u r t . You can tell me a n y t h i n g you wou ld like,i n c l u d i n g a n y t h i n g that may affect th e s e n t e n c e I g i v eyou . You ' r e a l s o f r e e to say n o t h i n g a t all. I st h e r e a n y t h i n g you wou ld like t o s a y ?

MR. GONZALEZ: Yes , sir.THE COURT: A l l right Speak up , t h o u gh . I

need to be a b le to he a r you .


36/48

36

(The allocution o f Mr. Gonza l e z is p r e p a r e dunde r s e p a r a t e c o v e r b e c au s e it was p r e v i o u s l yr e q u e s t e d )

THE COURT: Thank you , Mr. Gonza l e z . Mr.Hu f t a l e n , you g e t t h e last word .

MR. HUFTALEN: No t h i n g .THE COURT: Any t h i n g e l s e ?MR. HUFTALEN: No t h i n g . Thank you .THE COURT: A ll right. Thank you ve ry much .I've carefully r e v i ewed th e c o n t e n t s o f th e

p r e s e n t e n c e investigation r e p o r t , and I t a k e t h o s ec o n t e n t s i n t o a c c o u n t in d e t e rm i n i n g you r s e n te n c e inthis c a s e . I've a l s o carefully c o n s i d e r e d wha t Ih e a r d f rom c o u n s e l d u r in g th e c ou r s e o f t h ep r o c e e d i n g s . I r e a d all o f t h eexhibits. I've c o n s i d e r e d wha t

d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c i n gI h e a rd to d ay , as we l l

a s th e c o n t e n t s o f t h e allocution o f this d e f e n d a n t .I made my r u l i n g s onI make t h e f o l l ow i n g

all d i s p u t e d i t em s . Atg u i d e l i n e calculations:

this t ime

I f i n d th e facts, a s s e t f o r t h i n th ep r e s e n t e n c e r e p o r t wi th r e g a r d t o Coun t Two A,c o n s p i r a c yStates, th e

t o commi t o f f e n s e s a g a i n s tb a s e o f f e n s e l e v e l is 10 .

th eI

Un i t e df i n d th e

d e f e n d a n t p o s s e s s e d a d a n g e r o u s weapons and its usewas t h r e a t e n e d ; therefore, t h e o f f e n s e l e v e l lS


37/48

37

i n c r e a s e by 3 f o r a total o f 1 3 .I f i n d that th e d e fe n d a n t h as a t t e m p t e d t o

willfully obstruct th e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f justice inth e instant c a s e . Two l e v e l s a re ad d ed f o r a total o f15 . I ' ll d i s c u s s that in a few momen t s .

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n

c o m p u t a t i o n

o f

f i n d

th e

I

o fo f f e n s e

t h e

fact,

b a s e

th e

that

th e,

f i n d

after

th e

myI

TwofilingA g a i n ,

C oun tobe

w r i t i n g .

r e g a r dI w i l l

in

With1 9 .

a t t e m p t e d t o o b s t r u c tI n c r e a s i n g it t o 21 .

Co u n t T h r e e , a c c e s s o r y

ise v e lg u i d e l i n e sd e f e n d a n tjustice.

a b a s e l e v e l o f 1 9 . I a l s o f i n d t h e d e f e n d a n ta t t e m p te d to o b s t r u c t t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f justicewi th r e g a rd to th e p r o s e c u t i o n o f this instanto f f e n s e . I n c r e a s i n g it t o 21 .

P u r s u a n t to th e m u l t i - c o u n t a d Ju s tm e n t , th ecomb ined l e v e l is 22 . The d e f e n d a n t h as a C r i m i n a lH i s t o r y C a t e g o r y o f 1 , resulting in a g u i d e l i n e r a ngeo f 41 t o 51 m o n t h s .

The d e f e n d a n t is n o t eligible f o r p r o b a t i o n .The t e rm o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e is a t least two y e a r s ,

t h r e eto $ 7 5 , 0 0 0 .$100 f o r e ach co u n t

b u t no$ 7 , 500$ 2 0 0 .

more t h a nThe

y e a r s .total

is

The f i n e r a nge i ss p e c i a l a s s e s s m e n tm a n d a t o r y .

i s

R e s e r v i n g th e g o v e r n m e n t ' s o b j e c t i o n , Mr.


38/48

38

Hu f t a l e n , do you have any additional o b j e c t i o n s ?MR. HUFTALEN: No, you r Hono r . Thank you .THE COURT: Mr. Bownes , r e s e r v i n g all you r

prior o b j e c t i o n s , do you have any additionalo b j e c t i o n s ?

MR. BOWNESTHE COURT:

No, you r Hono r .A ll right. With r e g a r d to th e

o b s t r u c t i o n c o un t , it 's a p p a r e n t that this d e f e n d a n tton o t

p r o v i d e d

s u b j e c t .p r e s e n t e n c e

have

thatth e

r e p e a t e d l y du r i n gs t a n d a r d f o r

by a t t emp t i n gknew he s hou l d

mus tThe

d e f e n d a n th im s e l f .

a dm i n i s tr a t i o n

th ehatp e r j u r e d

o b s t r u c ton t e n d e dg i v e t h e j u r y instructions when heh av e . He knew wha t my r u l i n g was onTha t was an a t t emp t , as i n d i c a t e d inr e p o r t , to o b s t r u c t justice.

In a d d i t i o n , this d e f e n d a n th i s t e s t im o nyo b s t r u c t i o n is

th ei tha t t e ra t e r i a lf a l s e t e s t imo n y r a t h e r t h anmi s t a k e o r faulty memory .

c a s e s I f i n d that s t a n d a r d toc o n f u s i o n ,f o l l ow i n g

c o n c e r n i n gt o p r o v i d e

f a l s e t e s t imo n ywillful intentas a result o fIn e a ch o f t h ehave been m et :

With r e g a r d to day t e n , page 45 , he den i e dt h a t he came t o th e S t a t e o f New Hampsh i r e to c o n f r o n tth e U.S . ma r s h a l s o r to resist t h e efforts o f th ema r s h a l s . Th a t was perjurious. I f i n d that he d i d ,


39/48

39

in fact, come to New Hampsh i r e t o c o n f r o n t t h ema r s h a l s and t o p r e v e n t them f rom e n f o r c i n g th ewa r r a n t o f arrest.

On page 56 he testified that he didn't doa n y t h i n g wh i l e he was a t th e r e s i d e n c e to t h r e a t e n th eMar s h a l S e r v i c e o r a t t emp t to i n t im i d a t e them In anyway, and that h i s f o c u s was s imp ly to p r o t e c ti n d i v i d u a l s that wer e s how i ng up . I f i n d that to beperjurious. He was t h e r e specifically to i n t im i d a t eth e u . S . ma r s h a l s and t o p r e v e n t th em from e n f o r c i n g av a l i d o r d e r o f this c o u r t .

Onacquisition

page

o f a61 he testified wi t h.5 0 caliber rifle.

r e g a r d to h i sHe testified in

s u b s t a n c e that he pu r c h a s e d this rifle b e c a u s e it wasa good p r i c e and f o r h i s collection and n o t fo r t h ep u r p o s e o f u se to i n t im i d a t e o r p r e v e n t th e ma r s h a l sf rom p e r f o rm i n g their l aw f u l duties. I f i n d t h a t tobe perjurious. I f i n d that this rifle was pu r c h a s e dspecifically t o i n t im i d a t e th e ma r s h a l s , p r e v e n t themfrom a c c omp l i s h i n g their l aw f u l d u t i e s and wou ld havebeen u s ed a g a i n s t them if th e ma r s h a l s had a t t emp t e dt o e n f o r c e th e wa r r a n t .

b e c a u s e

He testified onthat rifle was a

page

good

62 that he pu r c h a s e d iti n v e s tm e n t . I f i nd t h a t

t o be perjurious f o r th e same r e a s o n .


40/48

40

He testified on p a g e 63 that this .5 0 caliber

rifle "was n o t t o threaten o r intimidate t h e Un i t e dStatesit was

M a r sh a lsno t. I

in any way" .f i n d that t o

He testified, no , thatbe perjurious f o r t h e same

r e a s o n s .

d e n i e dWi th r e g a r d t o

on that day thatday t e nhe was

o f t h ea t t h e

p r o c e e d i n g s , heBrown r e s i d e n c e

Th a t was a l s o

t o threaten o r intimidate t h e ma r s h a l s i n any way . If i n d that t o be perjurlous. Th a t was clearly h i sintent t o be there. He a l s o d e n i e d that he was i n ac o n s p i r a c y wi t h either R i l e y o r G e rh a rd w i th t h eo b j e c t o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y b e in g to harm o r t o threatent o do a n y t h i n g t o t h e Mar s h a l S e r v i c e . I f i n d that t obe perjurious and an obstruction.

On p a g e 70 he testified that he d id n o tc o n s p i r e wi t h t h e Browns o r anyon e else t o u se f o r c et h r o u gh fear, intimidation o r any other manne r t othreaten o r imp ed e t h e m a r s h a l s t o arrest t h e Browns .I f i n d that t o be perjurious.

He also testified that he n e v e r carried aweapon i n furtherance o f that p u r p o s e .perjurious.

He also testified that he didn't i n t e n d t ou se t h o s e f i r e a rm s t o threaten a n y o n e . I a g a i n f oundthat t o be perjurious a nd , h e n c e , an obstruction.


41/48

41

d id n o twhen he

He testified on page 35 o fp r o v i d e a rmed security fo rwas a t their r e s i d e n c e . I

day e l e v e n t h a t heEd and E l a i n e Brownf i n d that t o be

p e r j u r i o u s and a c r im i n a l obstruction.He i n d i c a t e d th e same r e s p o n s e on page 43 . I

make t h e same f i n d i n g .He a l s o d e n i e d b e i ng a member o f th e

c o n s p i r a c y wi t h th e o t h e r two d e f e n d a n t s i n thisma t t e r on page 61 . I f i n d that t o be p e r j u r i o u s

He testified on page 82 that he didn't go t oth e Brown r e s i d e n c e t o p r o v i d e f o rc e a b le r e s i s t a n c e to

o b s t r u c t i o n .

p e r j u r i o u s t e s t imony

t h e s e b e i n g anth e nullification

I f i n drrest.h e Ma r s h a l S e r v i c e t o p re v e n t th et h a t t o be p e r j u r i o u s and a l s o an

I wou ld have f ound any o fo b s t r u c t i o n o f justice, i n c l u d i n go u t b u r s t , b u t c umu l a t i v e it showsand , h en c e , an o b s t r u c t i o n .

I a l s o i n d i c a t e d p r e v i o u s l y t o c o u n s e l t h a t Iwou ld c o n s i d e r a v a r i a n t s e n t e n c e . I w i l l c o n s i d e r av a r i a n t s e n t e n c e t o d a y . I f i n d specifically t h a t th es e n t e n c e I 'm impo s i ng is sufficient, b u t n o t g r e a t e rt h a n n e c e s s a r y , t o effectuate t h e g o a l s o f 18 U .S .C . ,Se c t i o n 3553 ( a )

I carefully c o n s i d e r e d t h e s e n t e n c i n g r a nges e t f o r t h in th e a d v i s o r y guidelines. I , o f c o u r s e ,


42/48

42

g i v e t h e g u i d e l i n e s no controlling we i g h t . I havea l s o t a k e n i n t o a c c o un t all o f t h e factors s e t f o r t hin 18 U .S .C . , Se c t i o n 3 5 5 3 ( a ) .

The mos t critical f a c t o r s i n mycalculation in this c a s e a r e th e n a t u r e

s e n t e n c i n gand

c i r c um s t a n c e s o f this o f f e n s e , t h e s e r i o u s n e s s o f th eo f f e n s e , t h e need to p romo t e r e s p e c t f o r th e l aw , th eneed f o r just pun i s hmen t and th e need f o r g e n e r a l andspecific d e t e r r e n c e , as we l l as th e ne ed to p r o t e c tth e p u b l i c f rom f u r t h e r c r ime s o f this i n d i v i d u a l .

thisI ' ll

c a s e . Ir e p e a t th e r e a s o n s f o rf i n d t h a t Mr. Gonz a l e z

my s e n t e n c e inspecifically wen t

to th e Brown r e s i d e n c e p re p a r e d to i n t i m i d a te , p r e v e n tand , if n e c e s s a r y , kill members o f t h e Mar s h a l Se r v i c eo r o t h e r law e n f o r c emen t officers s h o u ld th e y a t t em p tto e n f o r c e a l aw f u l o r d e r o f this c o u r t .

From my view o f th e d e f e n d a n tc o u r s e o f trial and t o d a y , h i s filingst e s t imo n y , I b e l i e v e t h a t he r ema i n s a

d u r in g th eand h i ss e r i o u s dange r

to th e commun i t y . It was on l y b e c a u s e o f th erestraint o f t h e Mar s h a l S e r v i c e that a significantnumbe r o f i n d i v i d u a l s were n o t i n j u r e d o r killed, andby listening t o th e d e f e n d a n t d u r in g th e c o u r s e o ftrial and d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f h i s allocution, hestill doe s n o t und e r s t a n d due p r o c e s s , no r doe s he


43/48

Tha t i n d i c a t e s too f Mr. Gonza l e z

43

u n d e r s t a n d that h i s a c t i o n s were a violation o f l aw .The Con s t i t u t i o n and th e Bill o f R igh t s have

p r o v i d e d Mr. Gonz a l e z wi t h f a r more p r o t e c t i o n s t h anhe wou ld have p r o v i d e d to th e Mar s h a l S e r v i c e had t h e ya t t em p te d to e n f o r c e a v a l i d o r d e r o f this c o u r t .

I 'm particularly c o n c e r n e d that Mr. Gonza l e zob t a i n e d a f i r e a rm t h a t was c a p a b l e o f p i e r c i n g bodya rmo r worn by th e Ma r s h a l S e r v i c e .me ve ry clearly th e specific intentund e r t h e s e c ir c um s ta n c es .

In v iew o f t h a t fact, th e Cou r t f e e l s t h a tit 's n e c e s s a r y to impose a s e n te n c e in e x c e s s o f th eg u i d e l i n e r a n g e . I 'll impose s e n t e n c e a t this t ime .

Pu r s u a n t to th e S e n t e n c i n g Refo rm Act o f1984 , it is th e j u d gmen t o f this Cou r t t h a t thisd e f e n d a n t is h e r e by c ommi t t e d to th e c u s t o d y o f th eUn i t e d S t a t e s Bur e au o f P r i s o n s to be imp r i s o n e d fo r at e rm o f 60 mon th s on Coun t Two, and a t e rm o f 36mon th s on Coun t Th r e e , to be s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e to th et e rm impo s e d on Coun t Two,p r odu c e a total t e rm o f 96

Upon r e l e a s e f romd e f e n d a n t shall be p l a c e dt e rm o f t h r e e y e a r s . Th i s

to th e e x t e n t n e c e s s a r y ,mon th s in p r i s o n .imp r i s o nmen t , this

on s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e f o rt e rm consists o f t e rms o f

to

a

t h r e e y e a r s on Coun t s Two and Th r e e . A l l to be s e r v e d


44/48

p e n a l t ya t t h e

44

c o n c u r r e n t l y .W i t h i n 72 h o u r s o f release f r o m t h e c u s t o d y

o f t h e B u r e a u o f P r i s o n s , this d e f e n d a n t shall r e p o r ti n p e r s o n t o t h e p r o b a t i o n office i n t h e district t ow h i c h h e is released. W h i l e on s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s ethis d e f e n d a n t shall n o t c o m m i t a n y federal, state o rl o c a l c r i m e a n d shall c o m p l y w i t h t h e s t a n d a r dc o n d i t i o n s p r e v i o u s l y a d o p t e d b y this c o u r t a n d shallc o m p l y w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g additional c o n d i t i o n s :

T h i s d e f e n d a n t shall n o t illegally p o s s e s s acontrolled s u b s t a n c e . He shall n o t p o s s e s s a f i r e a r m ,destructive d e v i c e o r o t h e r d a n g e r o u s w e a p o n .P u r s u a n t t o l a w , this d e f e n d a n t shall s u b m i t t o DNAcollection w h i l e incarcerated a t t h e B u r e a u o f P r i s o n so r a t t h e direction o f t h e p r o b a t i o n office.

T h i s d e f e n d a n t shall refrain f r o m a n yu n l a w f u l u s e o f a controlled s u b s t a n c e . He shalls u b m i t t o o n e d r u g test w i t h i n fifteen d a y s f r o mr e l e a s e f r o m p r i s o n a n d a t least t w o periodic d r u gtests thereafter, n o t t o e x c e e d 72 d r u g tests p e r y e a ro f s u p e r v i s i o n .

T h i s d e f e n d a n t shall p a y a n y financiali m p o s e d b y this j u d g m e n t that r e m a i n s u n p a i d

c o m m e n c e m e n t o f t h e t e r m o f s u p e r v i s e d release.I n addition, this d e f e n d a n t shall c o m p l y w i t h


45/48

45

t h e f o l l ow i n g additional c o n d i t i o n sThe d e f e n d a n t shall s u bm i t h i s p e r s o n ,

r e s i d e n c e , office o r v e h i c l e t o a s e a r c h condu c t e d bya Un i t e d S t a t e s p r o b a t i o nand in a r e a s o n a b l e manne rs u s p i c i o n that c on t r a b a nd

officer inb a s ed upon

o r e v i d e n c e

a r e a s o n a b l e t imea r e a s o n a b l eo f a violation

o f a c o n d i t i o n o f s u p e r v i s e d release may exist.F a i l u r e to s u bm i t t o th e s e a r c h may be g r ound s f o rr e v o c a t i o n . The d e f e n d a n t shall warn any o t h e rr e s i d e n t s that t h e p r em i s e s may be s u b j e c t to s e a r c h e sp u r s u a n t t o this c o n d i t i o n .

The Cou r t f i n d s that this d e f e n d a n t doe s n o thavef i n e

t h e ability toi n this c a s e .

pay a f i n e , and II o r d e r a special

am wa i v i n ga s s e s smen t

t h eo f

$200 due in full immed i a t e l y in th e form o f a lump sumpaymen t .

Does t h e gove r nmen t have any o b j e c t i o n to th et e rms o f s u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e ?

MR. HUFTALEN: No, you r Hono r .THE

o b j e c t i o n t oCOURT: Mr.t h e t e rms o f

Bownes , do you haves u p e r v i s e d r e l e a s e ?

any

MR. BOWNES: Not t o t h e t e rms o f s u p e r v i s e drelease. I do hav e an o b j e c t i o n wi t h r e s p e c t to you rf i n d i n g s , J u d g e .

THE COURT: A l l right. Mr. Gonza l e z , I mus t


46/48

46

a dv i s e you that you have a right to a p p e a l t h ec o n v i c t i o n , a s we l l a s t h e s e n t e n c e . If you wish toeffectively e x e r c i s e that right o f a p p e a l , you mus tc a u s e t o be filed wi t h th e C l e r k o f this c o u r t w i th in

If you fail t o t i m e l y file thatt e n d ay s o f t o d ayNo t i c e o f App e a l .

and n o t after that a w r i t t e n

written No t i c e o f App e a l , you will hav e g i v en up you rright t o a p p e a l th e c o n v i c t i o n , a s we l l a s t h es e n t e n c e . If you c a n n o t a f f o r d t o file th e a p p e a l ,that a p p e a l will be filed w i t h o u t any c o s t t o you .A ll you hav e t o do is a s k , and t h e C le rk o f this c o u r tw i l l imme d i a t e l y p r e p a r e and file a No t i c e o f Appe a lf o r you . Do you u n d e r s t a n d ? Do you u n d e r s t a n d ?

Yes , y o u r Hono r .R. BOWNES:file an a p p e a l .

THE COURT: A ll right.

We i n t e n d to

Any t h i n g e l s e f romth e g o v e r nme n t ?

MR. HUFTALEN: No, you r Hono r .THE COURT: Mr. Bownes?MR. BOWNES: Yes .THE COURT: Go a h e a d .MR. BOWNES: I t h i n k I s a y this f o r th e

r e c o r d . The f i n d i n g s you made wi t h r e s p e c t toperjury, t h e f i n d i n g s you made wi t h r e s p e c t to t h e u seo f f o r c e i n go i n g t o t h e Brown r e s i d e n c e t o u se f o r c e


47/48

47

and harm U.S . m a r s h a l s ,c o n v i c t i o n s h e r e . Thea i d i n g and a b e t t i n g .

were n o t th e s u b j e c t o f th es U b j e c t o f th e c o n v i c t i o n s were

Bownes ,r.my f i n d i n g s , I 'm happyT h a t ' s you r right.

MR. BOWNES: know.

a p p e a l

o b j e c t i o nn

you wish toa p p e a l t h em .

if

I 'm t a k i n g

youaveo

I

COURT:HE

fo r p r e s e r v a t i o n o fTHE COURT: You p r e s e n t t h a t o b j e c t i o n in

w r i t i n g . A ny th i ng e l s e , Mr. Bownes?MR. BOWNES:THEMR.COURT:BOWNES:

Yes .Go ahe ad .

I 'm go i ng t o file a m ot i on fo rb a i l pe nd i ng a p p e a l .

THE COURT: You file t h a t m o t i o n , and I ' lla c t on it.

MR. BOWNES: Thank you , you r Honor .THE COURT: A ll right. We ' r e in r e c e s s . The

d e f e n d a n t is r emanded f o r e x e c u t i o n o f s e n t e n c e .( Co n c l u s i o n o f Hea r i ng a t 12 :50 p .m .)


48/48

48

C E R T I F Ie ATE

I , Su s a n M. Ba t eman , do h e r e b y certifythat t h e f o r e g o i n g transcript is a true and a c c u r a t etranscription o f t h e w i t h i n p r o c e e d i n g s , to th e b e s to f my k n ow l e d g e , skill, ability and belief.

S ubm i t te d : 3 -4 -0 9 /s/ Su s an M. Ba t emanSUSAN M. BATEMAN, CSR , RPR, eRR

gonzalez 26 sept 2008 sentencing1

Documents