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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

: CASE NUMBER 3:12 CR 164 (JBA)

vs.

HECTOR MORALES

: DECEMBER 29, 2014

DEFENDANTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

On July 19, 2012 the defendant, Hector Morales, was arrested and charged by way of
Indictment with Conspiracy to Distribute and to Possess with Intent to Distribute Narcotics;
Witness Tampering & Aiding and Abetting; Conspiracy to Tamper with Witnesses and
Destruction and Concealment of Evidence. On January 8, 2013, a Grand Jury returned a
Second Superseding Indictment against the defendant alleging the former charges, but also
adding three (3) counts of Accessory After the Fact to Arson Resulting in Death. Mr.
Morales elected to be tried by a jury on all of these charges. On April 18, 2013, following a
three week trial, a jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts. Despite the jurys verdict
the defendant has steadfastly maintained his innocence to these charges. His position has
been clear since the commencement of the Governments investigation of this case; 1) he
never assisted his son in any way with his flight from the arson fire; 2) he disputes the
allegation that he conspired with his son to distribute narcotics; and 3) he maintains that he
never tampered with witnesses or painted his van to conceal evidence from law enforcement
agents.
In spite of Mr. Morales firm belief that the jury got it wrong, he understands that it is
the Courts duty to sentence him in accordance with the jurys verdict. That being said, Mr.
Morales respectfully submits this memorandum as an aid to the Court and in support of his
request for a variance or non-Guideline sentence. In Part I of this memorandum, Mr.
1

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 2 of 27

Morales challenges the Guideline calculations which are set forth in the PSR by the U.S.
Probation Department. (See PSR at 45-73). Prior to sentencing, Mr. Morales raised
various objections to the Guideline calculations as he believes they are in error, which
ultimately affects his advisory Guideline range.
In Part II, Mr. Morales argues that the Guidelines range as proposed by Probation is
unduly harsh and is not necessary to achieve the purposes of sentencing as outlined in 18
U.S.C. 3553(a). Moreover, it does not adequately take into account his positive history and
individual characteristics. Mr. Morales request for a non-Guideline sentence and/or
variance is firmly rooted in the letter and spirit of the Guidelines, in that a sentence should be
sufficient, but not greater than necessary to fulfill the purposes of sentencing. See U.S.C.
3553(a).
PART I

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

As stated, supra, Hector Morales was found guilty on all counts of the Second
Superseding Indictment following a lengthy jury trial. Based on the verdict, a Presentence
Report was prepared by the U.S. Probation Department on November 24, 2014 which set
forth the offense level computation and Guideline provisions in the defendants case. See
45-73. The Probation Department calculated Mr. Morales advisory Guideline range to be
168-210 months confinement. Id. at 110.
On or about December 8th and 9th of 2014, Mr. Morales submitted several objections
to the Guideline calculations and proposed an alternative analysis of what the advisory
Guideline calculation should be in his case. Specifically, Mr. Morales argues that all of the
victims of the arson should be grouped together as opposed to three separate grouping
categories. Additionally, he asserts that a two-level upward adjustment for Obstruction of
Justice is not warranted in this case notwithstanding that he was convicted of Tampering with

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

Witnesses and Destruction and Concealment of Evidence, which form the basis of the
obstruction increase. Without these two adjustments, the defendant contends his total offense
level would be 30 instead of 35. With a criminal history category of I, his resulting advisory
Guideline range would be lowered to 97-121 months.
Defendants Calculation:
A. Grouping Issue
The main purpose of grouping is to limit the significance of the formal charging
decision and to prevent multiple punishment for substantially identical offense conduct.
U.S.S.G. Ch.3, Part D, introductory commentary. Section 3D1.2 of the sentencing
guidelines provides that in multi-count indictments, [a]ll counts involving substantially the
same harm shall be grouped together into a single group. However, the guideline drafters
explained that [a] primary consideration when determining whether to group particular
conduct is whether the offenses involve different victims. U.S.S.G. 3D1.2 Application
Note 8; see also United States v Vasco, 564 F.3d 12, 23 (1st Cir. 2009) (Crimes involving
multiple victims, even if the offense arose out of a single event, are grouped separately);
United States v Hernandez Coplin, 24 F.3d 312, 319 n. 7 (1st Cir. 1994) (The grouping
guidelines recognize the relationship between an appropriate sentence and the types and
numbers of victims). Presumably, the rationale behind the Sentencing Commissions
creation to separate grouping categories based on individual victims is to expose the actual
perpetrator of the offense to a greater total offense level, which in turn leads to a more
significant sentence. This logic appears well grounded on the principle that an actual
offender needs to be punished and held accountable for his actions.

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 4 of 27

The PSR in this case creates three (3) distinct groups for purposes of calculating Mr.
Morales Guidelines; one group is assigned for each victim who died as a result of the arson
offense. Arguably, the probation department relies on Application Note 8 of U.S.S.G. 3D1.2
to reach the conclusion of establishing three distinct Groups. The defendant would agree with
this analysis as it pertains to Hector Natal, as he is the individual who actually committed the
arson which led directly to the deaths of the three victims. However, Mr. Morales submits
that this grouping approach, as it relates to him and his conviction of Accessory After the
Fact, is not an appropriate enhancement. His accessory conviction relates solely to conduct
that occurred after the fire had already been set. (emphasis added). Put another way, Mr.
Morales conduct of driving his son, Hector Natal, away from the arson scene constitutes a
single event or transaction that played no part whatsoever in the setting of this tragic fire or
the deadly consequences that flowed from it.
Mr. Morales argues that the act of assisting someone to flee from the scene of a crime,
regardless if a death(s) occurs, should be viewed as a victimless crime for grouping purposes.
Subsection (d) of 3D1.2 provides a means for the sentencing judge to group counts involving
harms to different victims [w]hen the offense level [for each count] is determined largely on
the basis of the total amount of harm or lossor some other measure of aggregate harm
United States v Napoli, 179 F.3d 1, 9 (2d Cir. 1999). In drug trafficking cases, which are
also grouped together for Guideline calculation purposes, the illegal distribution of narcotics
harms not only the drug user, but also, the community at large by increasing lawlessness and
violence, and offenders of these crimes invade distinct societal interests. See U.S. v Johnson,
445 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 2006) (holding that decision to aggregate drug quantities involved in
separate charges was reasonable); U.S. v Johnston, 146 F.3d 785 (10th Cir. 1998) (holding
4

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 5 of 27

that district court properly grouped all drug offenses together to determine the total
punishment under paragraph (d)). Similarly, providing a means of flight for a perpetrator
who commits a crime imposes a distinct societal harm because it assists in creating
separation between the police, who respond to the scene, and the actual offender, ultimately
hindering the offenders apprehension.
The conduct that the jury attributed to Mr. Morales, that of helping his son flee the
Wolcott Street area after the fire had been set, involves substantially the same harm
notwithstanding that there were three victims attributed to Natals conduct. This constitutes
the total amount or aggregate harm attributed to Mr. Morales alleged actions. It seems a bit
unfair to cast a wide net and incorporate this enhancement against a defendant who plays no
part in the underlying crime, but simply gets involved with the offending party after the harm
has already been inflicted on the victims. (emphasis added). The mere fact that Morales
actions occurred after three innocent lives were lost is insufficient to establish that these
counts cannot be grouped under section 3D1.2(d) as one grouping category. Accordingly,
the defendants total offense level, as calculated by the probation department, should be
reduced by three levels. See U.S.S.G. 3d1.4.
B. Obstruction Enhancement
Addressing the two level obstruction enhancement pursuant to 3C1.1, Mr. Morales
argues it should not apply because hes already been convicted of the underlying offenses
which form the foundation for this enhancement. Mr. Morales is aware that application note
4 of this guideline states that the adjustment applies to any conduct regarding the official
investigation of the instant offense where there is a separate count of conviction for such
conduct. U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, comment (n.4). Arguably the Witness Tampering and Destruction

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 6 of 27

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

warrant such an adjustment, if the evidence was more compelling. (See PSR 45). But that
is not the case here. The Second Superseding Indictment alleged that the object of the
conspiracy was to cause witnesses subpoenaed to testify before the Grand Juryto give
false and misleading information to the Grand Jury in order to prevent the Grand Jury from
developing evidence that Natal was responsible for the fatal fire and to protect Natal and
Morales from being criminally charged. The Second Superseding Indictment further
alleged that Morales testified falsely before the Grand Jury regarding his and Natals
whereabouts on the night of the arson; hearing a voice in the street at the time of the fire; and
the reason he painted the van after the fire. The Government further alleged that Natal and
Morales corruptly suggested to witnesses that they testify falsely before the Grand Jury
regarding Natals attempt to commit arson in October 2010; Natals whereabouts at the time
of the March 9, 2011 fire; and Morales alteration and concealment of evidence. Finally the
Indictment alleged that Morales and Natal would threaten witnesses who failed to comply.
(See Second Superseding Indictment at 28-30).
In support of these allegations, the Government only offered the testimony of Jessica
Feliciano who allegedly was present for the family gatherings when the investigation was
discussed. And it is her testimony that is relied upon by the Probation Department in support
of the adjustment for obstruction. In 39 and 41 of the PSR, the Probation Department
captures excerpts from the trial transcript of Felicianos testimony concerning the tampering
and destruction/concealment charges. During questions posed by the Government to Ms.
Feliciano, she testified as to what she heard Mr. Morales say to his family members in the
days and/or weeks following the arson fire. Specifically, she heard Mr. Morales instruct

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 7 of 27

everyone to state that he painted his van from blue to black because Natal intended to
purchase it from him; and that a Mexican jewelry salesman had tried to start a fire at 48-50
Wolcott Street in the Fall of 2010. However, in no instance did Ms. Feliciano unequivocally
state that Mr. Morales instructed her or anyone else to testify falsely to the Grand Jury. She
couched her testimony in terms of her understanding as to what Mr. Morales meant by his
words. PSR at 39 and 41. Moreover, Felicianos naked allegations were not corroborated
by any independent evidence and were, in fact, denied by other witnesses who testified at
trial and/or before the Grand Jury. This evidence does not establish that Mr. Morales
obstructed or impeded the investigation. Rather, it is purely Ms. Felicianos interpretation of
Mr. Moraless alleged comments.
As to the Grand Jury testimony pertaining to Mr. Morales, where he admitted that he
painted the van after the fire and his concession that although Jorge Natal wanted the van
painted a different color he [Jorge] did not have a license and never paid him or completed
the paperwork for the sale, the Court should be mindful that not all inaccurate testimony or
statements made by a defendant necessarily is attributed to a willful attempt to obstruct
justice. See U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 at Application Note 2. The commentary stresses that
inaccurate testimony or statements sometimes may result from confusion, mistake or faulty
memory. Id. The evidence is irrefutable that Mr. Moraless intellectual capacity is low
functioning. In fact, he cannot read or write in either the Spanish or English language. See
PSR 100-101. He was diagnosed with an unspecified learning disability and dropped out of
school shortly after starting high school. Id. With this historical background relating to Mr.
Morales education, coupled with his age and lack of criminal record, it appears quite
unlikely that he had the intellect to conjure up this conspiracy to swart the Governments

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 8 of 27

investigation of the arson offense. Instead, the evidence at trial established that the defendant
continued to drive the van for weeks after the FBI began to question his son in relation to the
fire and all the way up to the point he was arrested. He even drove himself and Feliciano to
FBI headquarters in the same van when they were questioned about the arson. Another
compelling argument that Morales did not attempt to destroy or conceal evidence is that the
van wasnt painted until three-weeks after the arson occurred. Moreover, the van was parked
across from the crime scene during the period that the investigation was ongoing and police
and other law enforcement agents were actively assembled there.
In summary, the Governments attempt to create this impression of the defendant as
the sophisticated leader of his family clan who spearheaded and orchestrated this elaborate
scheme to impede the Governments investigation of the arson offense is simply not
supported by the evidence. Accordingly, the two-level Obstruction enhancement should not
be applied in this case.
PART II. SENTENCING CONSIDERATIONS & RECOMMENDATION
As the Court knows, a sentence must be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to
comply with the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Based upon the
foregoing, Mr. Morales respectfully asks this Court to impose a sentence below the 168-210
month Guideline range, which appears to be unduly harsh for his alleged involvement in the
offense. The Defendant is obviously aware that the Court listened to all of the testimony at
trial and reviewed all of the exhibits as they were entered into evidence in this matter and that
the Court has come to its own conclusions relative to Mr. Morales participation and
culpability in the alleged criminal offenses. Notwithstanding what the Court has heard about
Mr. Morales during the trial, and even if the Court does not sustain the defendants

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 9 of 27

objections with respect to the grouping and obstruction enhancements as suggested in the
PSR, the Court still should not sentence Mr. Morales within the recommended advisory
Guideline range. In short, a sentence well below the advisory Guidelines range would more
than satisfy the Second Circuits recognition of imposing individualized justice, United
States v Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 114 (2d Cir. 2005), abrogated on other grounds, United
States v Fagans, 406 F.3d 138, 142 (2d Cir. 2005), as well as the statutory mandate that a
sentence be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of
sentencing.

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

210 months as reasonable and, whether by way of variance or downward departure, should
instead impose a much lower sentence in this case.
A. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
In fashioning an individualized and just sentence, 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) directs the
Court to consider the history and characteristics of the defendant. In this case, there are
several factors in Mr. Morales life that should give rise to such consideration, including, (1)
his dedication to his family, and (2) his age combined with the lack of any likelihood of
recidivism. These factors, considered separately or together as a combination of factors
warrant a sentence well below the recommended advisory range, which would be sufficient
to meet the goals of sentencing in this case.
1.

Dedication to Family

Mr. Morales is a quiet, spiritual man whos lived a fairly simple and uneventful life
until the tragic events that transpired on March 9, 2011. During his 52 year of existence in
this world Mr. Morales wished no ill will or harm towards anyone. His life revolved around
his family and fulfilling their happiness. For the past 35+ years, hes been in a monogamous
9

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 10 of 27

relationship with his girlfriend, Elizabeth Natal, who is the mother of his three children. As a
young boy growing up in Puerto Rico, he was fortunate to be raised in a loving and nurturing
environment where his parents set an excellent example for him and his nine siblings to
follow. Both mom and dad worked so they were able to provide their large family with the
necessary essentials to live a comfortable life.
After Hector Morales and his family left Puerto Rico and eventually settled in New
Haven, he met his girlfriend Elizabeth, and following a brief courtship they decided to start
their own family. Nothing made Hector happier than spending quality time with his young
children. On weekends he would take them to a local park and in the summer to the beach,
and he always had their best intentions in mind. Living predominantly in the Fair Haven
section of the city, Hector was vigilant to keep a lookout for trouble, and if he sensed the
slightest rumbling on the street, hed order the children to play inside the apartment. Their
safety and well-being was of paramount importance to him.
As the children grew older, Hectors role shifted to becoming the family chauffer.
Since Hector and his wife sustained themselves on disability compensation, they could only
afford to own one car for the family. As the father, Hector was designated to be the familys
taxi service and he happily agreed to drive the other family members around town wherever
they needed to go, whether it was shopping, school, or other social events. This is how
Hector got himself unwittingly involved in his sons drug activities. Natal frequently asked
his father to drive him places, and often times, it involved Natals illicit practices. Always
acting as the family guardian and protector, Hector the father would usually warn his son to
be careful when he left the van if he saw a police presence in the neighborhood. This
cautionary alert was given to remind his son to avoid getting into any trouble. Contrary to
10

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 11 of 27

the Governments belief, the warning was not provided because Hector Morales had direct
knowledge that Natal was going to engage in a narcotics transaction. Rather, it was a simple
reminder to be careful on the street, much the same way that Sergeant Phil Esterhaus of the
Hill Street Blues TV series cautioned his fellow officers when they left roll call, Hey, lets
be careful out there.
Examining Mr. Morales social history as set forth in the PSR, he has no history of
substance abuse and his alcohol consumption was limited primarily to holiday celebrations.
Obviously, he also has no criminal history as referenced in 74. However, the PSR reflects
two prior arrests, one in 1981 and the other in 1985, and both of these allegations were
eventually dismissed by the court. Therefore, Mr. Morales objects to these allegations being
referenced in the PSR and moves that they be redacted. 1
Despite spending the past 30-months in confinement, Hector Morales family still
remains the foremost priority in his life. While incarcerated, he lost his father who passed
away from diabetes and pneumonia. It still pains him that he was unable to attend his
fathers funeral. When talking about his mother, Hector Moraless eyes usually well up with
tears. He describes his love for her as more than anything and sadly, he recognizes that her
declining health means he will likely miss her funeral in the future as well. Reflecting on his
case from behind the barren concrete prison walls, Hector Morales finds it most difficult to
reconcile how Jessica Feliciano, a person that he cared so much about and considered to be

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

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

11

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

like family, could construct and fabricate so many lies that ultimately led to his incarceration
and the ongoing nightmare that he encounters on a daily basis.
All of the other people that Mr. Morales interacted with and had been good to over the
years testified truthfully about him at trial, including his daughter, his former landlord, and
his former neighbor. Hector Morales is described by family members as a kind, gentle,
loving family man who would always go out of his way to help others. This is hardly the
man who would participate in a horrible crime like hes been convicted of.
At the time of sentencing Hector Morales will ask this Court to consider his entire life
prior to the events of March 9, 2011. Although Mr. Morales children are all grown, they
continue to rely upon him emotionally. He looks forward to the day that he can return to his
family and support them again.
2. Unlikelihood of Recidivism
Mr. Morales is fifty-two years old; he is a son, brother, husband, father, and
grandfather. His record is not only devoid of any prior criminal activity, but he has lived
devoutly, dedicating all of his time to his family and faith. Due to his lack of criminal
history, combined with his age and the unlikelihood that he will recidivate, he should be
given more credit for status. See United States v Corsey, 723 F.3d 366, 381 (2d Cir. 2013)
(Underhill, J. concurring) (older defendants can be expected to have a lower risk of
recidivism than most); United States v Huckin, 529 F.3d 1312, 1318-19 (10th Cir. 2008)
(a district court may weigh a defendants lack of criminal record, even when the
defendant has been placed into a Criminal History Category I, in its 3553(a) analysis.).

12

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 13 of 27

In United States v Ward, 814 F. Supp. 23, 24 (E.D. Va. 1993), the Court departed
from the then-mandatory Guidelines because they failed to consider the length of time a
defendant refrains from the commission of his first crime. (While awarding defendants
generally and this defendant individually some credit for leading relatively crime-free lives,
the Criminal History Category of the Sentencing Guidelines does not account for the length
of time a particular defendant refrains from criminal conduct.); see also United States v
Greene, 249 F.Supp. 2d 262 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (it is unlikely that Greene will repeat his
criminal conduct given that he is sixty-five year[s] old and previously had no criminal history
points. For all of these reasons, any period of incarceration would be inappropriate.); United
States v Carmona-Rodriquez, No. 04 CR 667RWS, 2005 WL 840464, *4 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
(the Court departed downwards 4 levels based on the fact that the defendant was 55 years
old, she had no prior criminal record, she was unlikely to recidivate and she suffered from
high blood pressure and diabetes); United States v Nellum, No. 2:04-CR-30-PS, 2005 WL
300073, at *3 (N.D. Ind. 2005) (the Court departed downwards 4 levels based upon a number
of factors, including that the defendant would be 65 years old upon his release, his high blood
pressure, blocked prostate, history of a heart attack, and his military service.); U.S.
Sentencing Commission, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, p. 12 (May 2004) (Recidivism rates decline relatively
consistently as age increases.) (attached hereto as Exhibit A). Indeed, the Sentencing
Commission has found that the best candidates for a crime-free future are those who have
little criminal history, a good recent employment record, are presently employed or attending
school, have no history of drug abuse, have no present drug use, and have a stable living
arrangement with a spouse. See U.S. Sentencing Commission, Sentencing Options under the

13

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

Guidelines, Staff Discussion Paper, p. 18 (Nov. 1996) (attached hereto as Exhibit B). The
foregoing, for the most part, applies to Mr. Morales, a fifty-two year old man, whos been in
a 35 year relationship with his girlfriend, Elizabeth Natal, with no substance abuse issues
(PSR at 95), who is wholeheartedly devoted to his family.
B. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
Even if the Court credits the Governments version of the offenses and the jurys
verdicts, the Court must nevertheless consider the various facts which mitigate the
defendants involvement in the case. First, the Government does not suggest that Mr.
Morales assisted his son in the actual setting of the fire. His participation, according to the
indictment, was limited to driving his son away from 48-50 Wolcott Street after Natal ran out
from the building. 2 Thereafter, Mr. Morales is alleged to have impeded the arson
investigation by providing false and misleading information to the Grand Jury to prevent
them from developing evidence of Natals responsibility for the fatal fire. Finally, Mr.
Morales is alleged to have assisted his son in distributing narcotics by serving as his driver
and holding drug monies for him.
The Court must consider that as a father, Mr. Morales has always felt it was his duty to
protect his family from any potential harm that may confront them. This is a practice that he
routinely performed since his children were young. Sadly, Mr. Morales continued this role
of protector once he discovered that his son was responsible for causing this terrible crime.
He recognized the gravity of the situation and tried to deflect evidence away from Natal
during the investigation by creating another possible suspect, the Mexican jeweler. He also

No evidence was presented at trial to suggest that Mr. Morales was aware of Natals
actions before he entered the building.

14

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 15 of 27

decided to paint the van once he learned that a witness had seen it leaving the crime scene.
As to the drug conspiracy, Morales often drove Natal around town, and sometimes, his son
performed drug transactions during these trips. Morales didnt condone this illegal activity,
but he didnt stop his son either. He would simply warn him to be careful whenever he
stepped out onto the streets. Once Mr. Morales committed himself to covering for his son, he
had stepped onto a slippery slope and there was no turning back.
C. Seriousness of the Offense
Mr. Morales concedes that the Arson offense is a very serious crime because three
innocent lives were lost in this tragic fire. The photographs of the crime scene that were
introduced into evidence speak a thousand words in describing the sheer terror that the
occupants of the residence must have experienced as the fire raged through the walls and
hallways of their home. But hopefully, the Court will consider Hector Natals conduct in this
offense separate and apart from his fathers alleged actions. Certainly, the Court must
impose a significant sentence that reflects the seriousness of the case as three people died.
However, in light of the circumstances behind Mr. Morales alleged participation in the
offenses of conviction, he asks the Court to arrive at a just sentence that is below the
recommended advisory Guideline range.
D. Protecting the Public From Further Crimes
In considering the need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,
this Court should consider that Mr. Moraless alleged conduct occurred solely because of the
actions of his son, Hector Natal. Specific deterrence is certainly unnecessary in this case.
The offense conduct was situation-specific and extremely narrow in scope. Assuming Mr.
Natal receives a life sentence, the defendant will never be in contact with him again in the
15

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 16 of 27

community. Accordingly, Mr. Morales poses no societal risk and needs not to be deterred through an overly lengthy prison sentence or otherwise from engaging in any similar
conduct in the future. A sentence of below the advisory guidelines will certainly send a
strong message to the community that being an accessory after the fact to an arson that
results in death will be met with a harsh federal punishment.
There is simply no evidence to suggest that a harsher sentence of imprisonment of
more than 97-months is necessary to satisfy the goals of sentencing, including deterring the
defendant from committing crimes in the future. The Department of Justice, itself, has
acknowledged that sending an offender to prison isnt a very effective way to deter crime
and increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime. See pamphlet produced
by the U.S. Department of Justice, Five Things About Deterrence, July, 2014 (attached
hereto as Exhibit C).
In short, Mr. Morales well-publicized arrest, prosecution and conviction, coupled
with a sentence of no more than 97-months of incarceration, completely satisfies the general
deterrent interests of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). In terms of the length of incarceration, there is no
evidence that a period approaching the PSRs advisory Guideline range will have any greater
deterrent effect than the sentence called for by the defenses Guideline calculation. Just
punishment may be imposed and proper respect for the law promoted with a sentence
consistent with the defenses proposal.
IV. CONCLUSION
As cited above, a fundamental principle of sentencing is that a court shall impose a
sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet specified sentencing goals,

16

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 17 of 27

including the goal of just punishment. See 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Mr. Morales understands
fully that he stands convicted of serious federal crimes and that these convictions will have
significant consequences. The arguments advanced in this memorandum for a sentence not
to exceed 97-month in no way seeks to diminish the actual seriousness of the crimes for
which he has been convicted. Rather, Mr. Morales background, history and character, as
well as consideration of the circumstances of the offenses of conviction, are factors for the
Court to consider for imposing a sentence below the advisory Guideline range. For these
reasons, a sentence of no more than 97-months imprisonment would be a sufficient and just
sentence in this case.
The Defendant
Hector Morales

_______/s/_________________________
William H. Paetzold
Moriarty, Paetzold & Sherwood
2230 Main Street
Glastonbury, CT 06033
Tel. (860) 657-1010
Fax (860) 657-1011
Federal Bar No.: ct10074

CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the foregoing was filed electronically on December 29, 2014 to all
parties by operation of the courts electronic filing system or by mail to anyone unable to accept
electronic filing as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing.
_______/s/____________________
William H. Paetzold

17

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 18 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 19 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 20 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 21 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 22 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 23 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 24 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 25 of 27

Case 3:12-cr-00164-JBA Document 279 Filed 12/29/14 Page 26 of 27

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