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

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. HALLASS 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 governments motion for a reduction in the offense level pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines in recognition of Mr. Hallass 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 Page 2 of 17

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. Hallass 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 Reports contents or its calculation of the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.1 We

As noted in the governments 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 2

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 17

acknowledge that a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range may constitute a reasonable punishment. However, for reasons set forth herein and pursuant to Mr. Hallass 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. Hallass 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. Hallass 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. Hallass 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 15month term of incarceration. Mr. Hallas, who is acknowledged to be the first individual to agree to cooperate with the governments 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 governments 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 3

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 17

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. Hallass 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. 4

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 5 of 17

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) (B) (C) (D) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and 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) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant (3553(a)(1)); The kinds of sentences available (3553(a)(3)); The advisory sentencing guidelines range (3553(a)(4)); Any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission (3553(a)(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 The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. (3553(a)(7)).

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 6 of 17

We respectfully submit that these statutory factors provide an ample basis for this Court to not only grant the governments 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. Hallass guilty plea. That said, it is important to provide some perspective on Mr. Hallass 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. Hallass 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. 6

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 7 of 17

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. Hallass 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. Hallass 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. Hallass family responsibilities are unique and merit consideration in determining an appropriate sentence. Mr. Hallass loving and supportive wife does not have a college degree and has limited employment skills and experience. The ramifications of Mr. Hallass potential incarceration, given Mrs. Hallass 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

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 8 of 17

Streptococcal infections (PANDAS), an auto-immune disorder characterized by obsessivecompulsive 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. Hallass 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. Hallass income is barely sufficient to cover their childrens 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

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 9 of 17

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 governments 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

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-falsifying9

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

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 OHarrow, 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-federalallegations/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-engineersmanager-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-dollarfederal-bribery-scheme/2012/05/17/glQAhFH5XU_story.html.
5

Indeed, the Court may recall taking time during Mr. Hallass October 13, 2011, plea hearing to ensure that Mr. Hallas was mentally strong enough to make it through the plea colloquy with the Court. 10

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

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 Defendants 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.

11

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

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 governments 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 Courts 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. 12

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 13 of 17

Those findings were directly relevant to the 3553(a) analysis [and] the District Courts 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 Courts 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 14level 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. Hallass role in the offense. The PSI Report also correctly reports that the parties have agreed to a 3-level reduction for Mr. Hallass 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

13

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 14 of 17

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 childrens 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 courts 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. Hallass former employer and Raj Malik wrongfully obtained through Mr. Hallass 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. 14

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 15 of 17

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. Hallass 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 Reports 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 reconsider 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.). 15

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 16 of 17

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 governments 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. Hallass cooperation with the U.S. Attorneys 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.

Additionally, Mr. Hallas has cooperated with and provided information to the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorneys Office for the District of Maryland. 16

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 21 Filed 10/24/12 Page 17 of 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: pburton@poeburton.com /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: bmurphy@poeburton.com Attorneys for Theodoros N. Hallas

17