Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : CASE NO.: 15 CR 174 (JCH)

PLAINTIFF : 16 CR 071 (JCH)
:
v. :
:
JEFFREY BENTON, :
DEFENDANT : September 19, 2017

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM SUBMITTED ON

BEHALF OF DEFENDANT JEFFREY BENTON

INTRODUCTION

This memorandum is submitted on behalf of Jeffrey Benton, who is scheduled to be

sentenced before the Court on October 4, 2017. This sentencing memorandum documents the

defendants individual characteristics for the Courts consideration, to assist the Court in

determining a sentence that serves the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and also, in this

difficult case, the interests of justice.

As will be more fully discussed below, Mr. Bentons unique set of circumstances, including

his horrific childhood and related traumas, and the term of imprisonment he previously served and

is currently serving for related conduct, warrant the Courts consideration. Mr. Benton respectfully

requests that the Court impose a sentence of 360 months to serve on the several counts of

conviction. Additionally, Mr. Benton respectfully requests that the Court determine that the period

of time the defendant has served since his arrest and incarceration on May 17, 2012 (see Indictment

3:12CR104 (EEB)), was a term of imprisonment result[ing] from another offense that is relevant

1
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 2 of 17

conduct to the instant offense of conviction,1 and adjust todays sentence by sixty-five (65)

months, as that term will not be credited to Mr. Benton by the Bureau of Prisons,2 and order that

the sentence run concurrently with the defendants 2013 sentence.3 Jeffrey Benton suggests that

such a sentence is in conformity with the plea agreement entered into between the parties and will

adequately achieve the purposes of sentencing in this case.

BACKGROUND

This prosecution of Jeffrey Benton stemmed from the governments filing, on September

30, 2015, of a multi-count, multi-defendant Indictment charging Mr. Benton with Racketeering,

Racketeering Conspiracy, Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering, Money Laundering, and Use of

Firearms in Relation to a Crime of Violence. The VICAR crimes included the attempted murder

of Carl Williams, the murder of Kevin Lee, the murder of Donald Allick, the conspiracy to murder

Darrick Cooper and the murder of Donald Bolden. On or about October 30, 2015, Mr. Benton

was transported to this District from a federal correctional center, where he was serving a 104

month sentence for a November 21, 2014 conviction resulting from his guilty plea to Count One

of Superseding Indictment 3:12CR104 (EEB). Mr. Benton had been detained since his initial

arrest on May 17, 2012.4

On March 17, 2017, Mr. Benton pled guilty before the Honorable Joan Margolis, to Counts

One and Thirteen of Indictment No. 3:15CR174 (JCH) and Count One of Indictment 3:16CR071

1
See United States Sentencing Guideline 5G1.3(b).
2
U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b)(1).
3
U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b)(2).
4
On or about March 24, 2016, a narcotics/firearms prosecution then pending against Mr. Benton in the District of
Maine was transferred to the District of Connecticut and joined with the present matter. See Docket No. 3:16CR071
(JCH).

2
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 3 of 17

(JCH). A plea agreement entered into between Mr. Benton and the government, pursuant to Fed.

R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), provided in pertinent part:

The defendant and the Government agree, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.

ll(c)(l)(C), that a sentence of at least 360 months' incarceration, and no more than
480 months' incarceration is a reasonable and appropriate incarceration term, which
is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the purposes of sentencing
in light of the factors set forth under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). In accordance with Fed.
R. Crim. P. ll(c)(l)(C), if the Court accepts this plea agreement, the Court must
include the agreed disposition in the judgment. In particular, if the Court accepts
this plea agreement, the Court must impose an incarceration term of at least 360
months, and not more than 480 months in prison. The defendant will argue in
support of a sentence of 360 months in jail, and the Government will argue in
support of a sentence of 480 months in jail. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. ll(c)(5),
if the Court rejects this plea agreement or the agreed-upon sentencing stipulation,
the defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. The
defendant understands that he has no right to withdraw his guilty plea as long as
the Court imposes a sentence consistent with the terms of the stipulated sentence.
The defendant further understands that, if the Court rejects the plea agreement or
the agreed-upon sentencing stipulation, the Government may deem this plea
agreement null and void.

Mr. Benton requests that the Court adopt the plea agreement entered into by Mr. Benton

and the government. The defendant requests that the Court impose a total effective non-guideline

sentence of 360 months incarceration. Further, the defendant submits that he is entitled to credit

of 65 months for the period of time he has been incarcerated between May 17, 2012 and the date

of sentencing pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b)(1) and that the remainder of the sentence to be

imposed be ordered to run concurrently with the remaining portion of the sentence imposed in

3:12CR104 (EBB)[now (JCH)] pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b)(2). Such a sentence would be

arrived at by determining that a sentence of 360 months is sufficient, but no more than necessary

to satisfy the directives of 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) and that Mr. Benton has served a five (5) year

period of incarceration for related/relevant conduct.

3
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 4 of 17

GUIDELINE APPLICATION

A. This Court Should Apply United States Sentencing Guideline 5G1.3(b) and Credit
Mr. Bentons Sentence The Period Of His Incarceration Since His May 17, 2012
Arrest on Relevant Conduct and Order that His Sentence for the Instant Offense
Shall be Imposed to Run Concurrently with the Remainder of His Undischarged
Term of Imprisonment

U.S. Sentencing Guideline Section 5G1.3 dictates when and how courts are to adjust

sentences to account for undischarged terms of imprisonment5 and although seemingly

straightforward, has been described as one of the most complex sentencing guidelines by the

Second Circuit. U.S. v. Whiteley, 54 F.3d 85, 87 (2d Cir. 1995). Section 5G1.3 applies when the

defendant being sentenced is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment pursuant to some

other proceeding and where all of the prior offense conduct is relevant conduct to the instant

offense under the Relevant Conduct Guideline section 1B1.3. U.S.S.G. 5G1.3, Application

Note 2(A).

5
5G1.3. Imposition of a Sentence on a Defendant Subject to an Undischarged Term of Imprisonment or
Anticipated State Term of Imprisonment
(a) If the instant offense was committed while the defendant was serving a term of imprisonment (including
work release, furlough, or escape status) or after sentencing for, but before commencing service of, such term of
imprisonment, the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run consecutively to the undischarged
term of imprisonment.
(b) If subsection (a) does not apply, and a term of imprisonment resulted from another offense that is relevant
conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(3) of 1B1.3
(Relevant Conduct), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed as follows:
(1) the court shall adjust the sentence for any period of imprisonment already served on the
undischarged term of imprisonment if the court determines that such period of imprisonment will not be
credited to the federal sentence by the Bu-reau of Prisons; and
(2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the remainder of the
undischarged term of imprisonment.
(c) If subsection (a) does not apply, and a state term of imprisonment is anticipated to result from another
offense that is relevant conduct to the instant offense of conviction under the provisions of subsections (a)(1),
(a)(2), or (a)(3) of 1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct), the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run
concurrently to the anticipated term of imprisonment.
(d) (Policy Statement) In any other case involving an undischarged term of imprisonment, the sentence for the
instant offense may be imposed to run concurrently, partially concurrently, or consecutively to the prior
undischarged term of imprisonment to achieve a reasonable punishment for the instant offense.

4
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 5 of 17

U.S.S.G. 5G1.3 identifies four distinct instances where the application of the guideline

is appropriate. Section 5G1.3(a) speaks to those situations where a defendant commits the offense

for which he is to be sentenced, while serving a term of imprisonment or after being sentenced but

prior to commencing the term of imprisonment. Section 5G1.3(c) applies to defendants not subject

to 5G1.3(a) but who are subject to an anticipated state term of imprisonment from an offense that

constitutes relevant conduct. Section 5G1.3(d) is the catch-all provision that applies to any other

case involving undischarged terms of imprisonment. Section 5G1.3(b) applies to Jeffrey Benton

and directs the Court to impose a sentence as follows:

(1) the court shall adjust the sentence for any period of imprisonment already served
on the undischarged term of imprisonment if the court determines that such period of
imprisonment will not be credited to the federal sentence by the Bureau of Prisons; and

(2) the sentence for the instant offense shall be imposed to run concurrently to the
remainder of the undischarged term of imprisonment.

U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b)(1)-(b)(2).

Regarding relevant conduct, the plea agreement stipulates that the defendants offense

conduct underlying the charges in the Connecticut and Maine indictments ended with the

defendants federal arrest on May 17, 2012. Although the conduct identified in the 2012

Indictment, the 2013 Indictment and the 2015 Indictment are not identical, the past and present

offenses need not be identical, or possess the same elements, See U.S. v. Williams, 260 F.3d 160,

166 (2d Cir. 2001); rather the focus should be on whether the conduct underlying the first offense

was also the basis for prosecution of the second. Id.

Count One of the 2012 Indictment charged Jeffrey Benton (and others) with participating

in a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute narcotics. The 2012 Indictment

alleged that from approximately January 2011 through approximately January 2012, in the District

of Connecticut and elsewhere, Jeffrey Benton and others, would distribute and possess with intent

5
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 6 of 17

to distribute, one kilogram or more of heroin, five kilograms or more of cocaine and 280 grams or

more of crack-cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(A). Count One of the 2013

Indictment charged Jeffrey Benton and others with participating in a conspiracy to distribute and

to possess with intent to distribute narcotics and further alleged that from approximately January

2011 through approximately January 2012, in the District of Connecticut and elsewhere, Jeffrey

Benton and others did distribute and possess with intent to distribute 100 grams or more of heroin

in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(B). On September 30, 2015, defendant Benton was charged

in the instant Indictment with Racketeering and identified a conspiracy to distribute cocaine as

Racketeering Act One, to wit:

From in or about 2011 through in or about 2012, in the District of Connecticut and the
District of Maine and elsewhere, the defendants JEFFREY BENTON and KEITH
YOUNG, and others known and unknown, unlawfully, intentionally and knowingly
combined, conspired, confederated and agreed together and with each other to distribute
and possess with intent to distribute a mixture and substance containing a detectable
amount of cocaine base ("crack cocaine"), a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation
of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 84l(a)(1), 841(b)(l)(C) and 846.

Would the Court have considered as relevant conduct the narcotics activity identified in

the 2012 and 2013 Indictments in sentencing the defendant on the 2015 Indictment? Absolutely.

U.S.S.G. 1B1.3 and the U.S. Supreme Court6 would have demanded as much.

As it is demonstrably clear that 5G1.3(b) applies to Jeffrey Benton, the defendant seeks

its application in accordance with (b)(1) and (b)(2).

6
[T]he Guidelines certainly envision that sentences for multiple offenses arising out of the same criminal activity
ordinarily will be imposed together, they also explicitly contemplate the possibility of separate prosecutions involving
the same or overlapping "relevant conduct." See USSG 5G1.3, comment., n. 2 (addressing cases in which "a
defendant is prosecuted in . . . two or more federal jurisdictions, for the same criminal conduct or for different criminal
transactions that were part of the same course of conduct"). There are often valid reasons why related crimes
committed by the same defendant are not prosecuted in the same proceeding, and 5G1.3 of the Guidelines attempts
to achieve some coordination of sentences imposed in such situations with an eye toward having such punishments
approximate the total penalty that would have been imposed had the sentences for the different offenses been imposed
at the same time ( i.e., had all of the offenses been prosecuted in a single proceeding). See USSG 5G1.3, comment.,
n. 3. Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389 (1995).

6
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 7 of 17

PERSONAL HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS7

Family Background

Jeffrey Benton was born February 1, 1985 at Yale/New Haven Hospital to Patricia Benton

and Jeffrey Burruss. Mr. Bentons biological parents were not in a relationship; Jeffrey Burruss

was married at the time of Jeffreys birth to Shirley Hill of New Haven and he made no imprint on

the Benton family other than impregnating 19 year-old Patricia. There was no other male role-

model in the Benton household during Mr. Bentons childhood, as Patricia Benton had 5 other

children from 4 different fathers, none of whom assumed a paternal role. It is believed that one of

Patricia Bentons paramours died of AIDs and the paternity of two of her children remains unclear.

Mr. Burruss himself was the product of foster care and a life-long drug addict. Jeffrey

Benton was raised knowing that his father supported himself by selling crack and pimping women

and Jeffrey had no contact with him until Burruss funeral. Mr. Burruss death was attributed to a

heroin overdose in 1989; however, Mr. Burruss family believes that Burruss was murdered by a

rival drug dealer over a drug spot and was given a hot-shot, a dose of heroin that has been

replaced with battery acid.

Patricia Benton was raised in New Haven with her 14 siblings in a dysfunctional

environment suffused with alcohol and drug abuse. Pregnant for the first time at the age of 17,

Patricia Benton moved from her family home and began a pattern of addiction and relocation that

caused her children to grow up in squalor, uncertain whether they would have their basic needs

met. Connecticut DCF reports are replete with references to Ms. Bentons substance abuse and

neglect, and her family and neighbors describe her various homes as disheveled, and her children

7
Undersigned counsel is grateful to Senior United States Probation Officer Meghan Nagy for her thorough presentence
report, which includes details and information about Jeffrey Bentons life history. Much of SUSPOs Nagys narrative
regarding Mr. Bentons background comes from documents prepared by the undersigned and the hundreds of pages
of supporting documents identified and collected by the undersigned and provided to SUSPO Nagy.

7
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 8 of 17

unclean and unsupervised. Family members recall thirteen different addresses where the family

resided by the time Jeffrey Benton was a teen.

Jeffrey Bentons mother did not seek prenatal care while pregnant with him until she was

six months pregnant. According to Yale New Haven Hospital records, Patricia Benton reported

Jeffreys pregnancy as unexpected and unwanted, and that the father was incarcerated on a

parole violation at the time of Jeffrey Bentons birth. Medical records describe Patricia as lacking

the ability to provide Jeffrey with the proper supervision or medical care.

Between 1985 and 1989, Jeffrey Benton lived with his family in an apartment on Orchard

Street in New Haven. Patricia Benton admits to that she was too friendly to the wrong people

and allowed a steady stream of men to stay over. Drug activity in the apartment was common-

place; drug dealers sold and stashed drugs from her house. As a result, gun-fire was directed at

the house on several occasions. Jeffery and his siblings were taught to dive away from the

windows when they heard shots and would often sleep on the floor. Jeffreys brothers and sisters

describe constantly going hungry, as their mother was too high to care about her childrens needs.

They recall meals of mayonnaise or syrup sandwiches and times when their refrigerator and

cabinets were completely empty.

In September 1990, Jeffrey Benton experienced a series of traumatic events. On the

morning of September 21st, he complained to his mother of a pain in his groin area and upon

inspection was found to have a swollen penis which discharged puss. He was brought to the

Yale/New Haven Hospital ER and an examination revealed that he had been sexually assaulted.

Records from the Department of Children and Family and Yale/New Haven Hospital describe the

incident:

On September 21, mother brought Jeffery into Yale ER because she said childs
penis was swollen. She claimed child got kicked by a sibling. In examining child,

8
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 9 of 17

his penis was swollen and puss filled. Gonorrhea test taken and positive result.
Child identifies Uncle James (resides in the home) as someone who squeezes his
birdie and pulls it. Sue describes mom as having no affect when told. She
remained flat and had no explanation.Mother plans to confront m. uncle. (Sue
does not feel mother will follow through.)..[s]he is an inappropriate caregiver.
(DCF Report, p.76)

DCFs investigative findings are reported as:

sexual abuse confirmed on Jeffery. He has a positive test for Gonorrhea. Jeffrey
also made disclosures of sexual abuse.

Relevant Circumstances: Mothers inability to really understand what Jeffery

has been through.

Upon interviewing 5 year-old Jeffrey Benton, it became clear not only that Jeffrey had been

sodomized by his uncle but also that his mother was not going to do anything about it.

DCF, p.80 Jeffrey stated on 10/1/90, that his uncle James pulled his birdie
(penis) on 9/20/90. He stated his uncle put his finger in his butt.

DCF, p.85 uncle would get into his bed. I asked who was home, he states
his mom was homeI asked did his uncle have clothes on. He state yes. I asked
what did he have on, he said underwear. I asked how did his uncle touch his birdie.
He said he pulled it and his.

DCF, p.89 I covered his eyes. Jeffery states that his uncle James put his fingers
in his buttI told Jeffrey that it wasnt his fault what happened to him, this uncle
needed help I told his mom Jeff did tell me some more about what happened
between him and his uncle.mom didnt seem to react in any way of showing
emotion.

DCF, p.90 [Phone call] to mom. She stated that she didnt understand why
her brother was in jailShe said she knows her brother and he couldnt do those
things.

Jeffrey Bentons mother was completely indifferent to this sexual assault; DCF was

similarly and inexcusably ineffectual in providing intervention or any needed counseling and

treatment. After DCF learned that Jeffreys uncle had been arrested, the agency closed its

investigative file as they reported that the threat had been removed.

9
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 10 of 17

In 1992, the Benton family moved to Newhall Street, a neighborhood rife with drug activity

and violence. A family friend warned Patricia Benton that shootings would be directed at their

home as a result of her drug activity. Mrs. Benton recalls a drug dealer paying for her and her

mother to stay at a local hotel for a week. Soon thereafter narcotics police entered the home with

a search warrant looking for guns and drugs. Jeffrey Benton was eight-years old at the time.

When Jeffrey Benton was 9 years old, he witnessed his friend, Jose, get shot in the face

and killed while they were playing football in front of their building. Benton recalls some guys

started shooting and then Jose fell to the ground with blood pooling around his head. A crowd

gathered and Jeffrey Benton was rushed inside his house. Jeffrey Benton recalls attending Joses

funeral but not being allowed to approach the open casket. It is no surprise that Patricia Benton

did nothing to assist Jeffrey Benton with the trauma of witnessing his friends sudden and violent

death.

In 1994, the Benton family moved to Dixwell Avenue but remained there for less than a

year. By September 1995, the family was living on Plymouth Street where Jeffrey Bentons uncle,

Mark Benton, began selling crack out of the home. Patricia Bentons boyfriend, Lloyd Tucker,

was also using the house as his spot and at that time, he and Patricia can best be described as

drug fiends. While residing on Plymouth Street, Patricia was again reported to DCF. Records

state that on September 19, 1995, an anonymous [c]aller stated that Patricia Benton and her

boyfriend sold drugs from her home and that she and her boyfriend exposed her children to such

activity. It also was alleged that Patricia Benton was a substance abuser. Law enforcement

arrived the next day and arrested Lloyd Tucker and Jeffreys older brother Clarence Jr., but no

measures were taken to protect Jeffrey Benton or the other children.

10
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 11 of 17

In March 1996, the Benton family moved to an apartment on Compton Street. Six months

after moving in, a fire of unknown origin destroyed the home and all of the familys belongings.

With all of their possessions destroyed, the Benton family moved into a grandparents home.

DCF records from April 10, 1996, describe that an anonymous neighbor called DCF stating

that, he was concerned for the safety of her three children due to Patricia Bentons substance

abuse. Caller stated that he was fed up with the situation and the neglect of the children. The mother

was crack/cocaine addicted and there was a lot of traffic in and out of the home and the mother

has parties 24 hours a day and the children are not going to school. The caller stated that he

contacted the landlord, but nothing was done and he called the police.

During the summer of 1996, Jeffrey Benton witnessed another sudden death. He was

swimming with several friends at the Sound School at City Point when his 13 year old neighbor

dove off a pier into Long Island Sound. There was no lifeguard or parental supervision as the pier

served primarily as a marina. When his friend didnt resurface, Jeffrey Benton and several other

children ran for help. Later that day, divers pulled his friends body from the water and Jeffrey

Benton recalls parents arriving and a lot of screaming. The Benton family recalls this young mans

funeral but never any discussion of what had happened or its effect on Jeffrey.

By September 1996, Jeffrey Benton, 11 years old, entered the juvenile justice system.

According to DCF records, a September 10, 1996 probation report states that Jeffrey missed

several days of the Auto Theft Program he was mandated to attend by the Court. The report states,

he has also been extremely disruptive in the program...Also, he has been seen on numerous

occasions riding his bike in areas far away from his home during evening hours. In the opinion

of his probation officer Jeffery does not have a chance for rehabilitation if mother continues her

substance abuse activity.

11
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 12 of 17

Patricia Benton was continuously supervised by DCF through 1998 following allegations

of substance abuse and neglect. She was mandated to attend counseling at the New Haven Family

Alliance but although DCF suggested that Jeffrey Benton be evaluated as well, records

document mom doesnt want Jeffrey to have to relive sexual abuse through counseling [social

worker] concerned about any suppressed underlying issues.

Education, Learning Disability & Mental Health

Due to his familys multiple relocations, Jeffrey Benton did not have any consistency in

his elementary education. He attended Timothy Dwight Elementary School for Kindergarten and

first grade; Martin Luther King School for second and third grade; Wexler Grant Elementary

School for fourth grade; Truman School for fifth grade; Augusta Lewis Troup School for fifth and

sixth grade; and Urban Youth Center from 1997 to 1999. Thereafter he attended schools at juvenile

residential centers.

Jeffrey Benton was placed at Connecticut Juvenile Training School, Long Lane and the

James Hillhouse High School. While at Long Lane, he was deemed in need of more intensive

therapeutic intervention. He was sent for evaluation at Stonington Institute in June 2001 to address

his substance abuse and behavioral issues. Stonington records report the following: it is noted

that Jeffrey has a strong history of paternal and maternal history of substance use as well as

significant family instability. The records note that Jeffrey Bentons substance abuse began at

the age of thirteen and at the time of his evaluation at Stonington, he was smoking marihuana five

times a day and drinking alcohol on a daily basis. Jeffrey was classified as chemically dependent

with symptoms of depression and conduct disorder. He was placed on Remeron, an antidepressant,

and Trazadone, a tetracyclic anti-depressant for both depression and anxiety. On October 11, 2001

12
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 13 of 17

Jeffrey was administratively discharged from Stonington Institute due to his need for a more secure

setting. He returned to Long Lane to complete his time there.

At age fourteen, Jeffrey Benton resided at OASIS Residential Program of Youth

Continuum, Inc. While in therapy, he reported suicidal ideations and was taken to Yale New Haven

Hospital for emergency attention. Records show Jeffrey Benton had a headache and needed

meds. When she [Jen] could not provide them he casually mentioned he wished he could take the

whole bottle. Tonight, Jen (Youth Continuum Staff) brought up the conversation and Jeffrey said

he would definitely kill himself...this 14 y/o presents to emergency department with Youth

Continuum staff member due to verbalization of wanting to kill self. Jeffrey is experiencing

Acute Stress R/O Depression, R/O Oppositional Behavior as indicated by recent onset (two weeks)

of feelings of sadness related to not being able to make visit home on furlough because he did not

earn the Level II privilege due to his own unconscious self-sabotaging behavior. He appears to be

ambivalent re: making home visits due to maternal inconsistency (likely related to parental

impairment with substance use). OASIS records describe Bentons difficult home environment

as mother uses cocaine and is an inconsistent caretaker when he lived with her. He did not have

essentials such as food, clothing, shelter and money.

Jeffrey Bentons presentence report from his 2012 prosecution in the Bloodline Case

reports the following mental health impairments:

The defendant denied any history of treatment for mental health or emotional
problems, Probation records indicate that before Mr. Bentons placement at [Long
Lane School], he was given a psychological evaluation on August 2, 2000, to assess
his overall level of functioning. He was administered the WISC-III where he
obtained the following scores: Verbal IQ of 78, Performance IQ of 86 and a Full
Score IQ of 80. His overall intellectual abilities reside in the Low Average range
of tested cognitive capacities. On August 11, 2000, he was given a psychiatric
evaluation where the following diagnostic impression was offered. Axis I
Conduct Disorder and Cannabis Dependence; Axis II Deferred; Axis III: None;

13
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 14 of 17

Axis IV: stressors include severe chronic marijuana abuse, death of father,
academic and legal difficulties; Axis V: Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)
scale revealed an overall rating of psychological functioning to be a 50. According
to the DSM IV, a rating at this level is defined as a person who has serious
behavioral symptoms which include suicidal ideation, severe obsessional rituals,
or any serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning, such as
no friends or unable to keep a job.

Presentence Report, 80, U.S. v. Benton, 3:12CR104 (EBB), Doc. 1457.

Jeffrey Bentons early life story is as compelling as it is horrific; a long tortured history of

physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Jeffrey Benton was failed by all of the support systems in

his life including his parents, Department of Children and Families and the New Haven School

system. It is not a stretch to say that Jeffrey Bentons life was destroyed by the time he was 8

years old. Gang activity, with its focus on criminal behavior, is where he found validity, escape

from a miserable life, comradery and loyalty. Jeffrey Bentons narrative, is not presented as an

excuse for his reprehensible acts, but rather as the prism through which the court must view the

individual defendant.

THE APPROPRIATE SENTENCE

The United States Sentencing Guidelines provide the starting point and the initial

benchmark for sentencing, Gall, 128 S. Ct at 596, and the District Courts must remain cognizant

of them throughout the sentencing process, Id, at 596 n.6. It is now, however, emphatically clear

that the Guidelines are guidelines that is, they are truly advisory. United States v. Cavera, 550

F.3d 180 (2d Cir. 2008) [Emphasis added]. A district court may not presume that a Guideline

sentence is reasonable, it must instead conduct its own independent review of the sentencing

factors, aided by the arguments of the prosecution and defense. District Judges are, as a result,

generally free to impose sentences outside the recommended range. Id. District judges may

14
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 15 of 17

exercise discretion in fitting sentences to a defendants individual characteristics. United States v.

Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 114 (2d Cir. 2005).

In exercising this discretion, judges are guided by 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), which directs them

to impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to, among other

considerations, reflect the seriousness of the offense, . . . promote respect for the law, and provide

just punishment for the offense, and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 18

U.S.C. 3553(a)(2). The statute also directs courts to consider, among other things, the nature

and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, 18 U.S.C.

3553(a)(1), as well as the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants

with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6). It

is submitted that a sentence of 360 months strikes this balance.

15
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 16 of 17

CONCLUSION

Mr. Benton respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence of 360 months to serve

on the several counts of conviction. Additionally, Mr. Benton respectfully requests that the Court

determine that the period of time the defendant has served since his arrest and incarceration on

May 17, 2012, was a term of imprisonment result[ing] from another offense that is relevant

conduct to the instant offense of conviction,8 and adjust todays sentence by sixty-five (65)

months, as that term will not be credited to Mr. Benton by the Bureau of Prisons 9 and order that

the sentence the Court imposes shall run concurrently with the defendants 2013 sentence. Jeffrey

Benton submits that such a sentence is in conformity with the plea agreement entered into between

the parties and will adequately achieve the purposes of sentencing.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

THE DEFENDANT,
JEFFREY BENTON

BY__/s/ Bruce D. Koffsky___ _ ct17505_____________

Bruce D. Koffsky, Esq. Francis L. OReilly, Esq.
Koffsky & Felsen, LLC OReilly & Shaw
1150 Bedford Street 167 Old Post Road
Stamford, Ct 06905 Southport, CT 06890
Tel.: 203-327-1500 Tel.: 203-319-0707
Fax: 203-327-7660 Fax.: 203-319-0128
Federal Bar No.: ct3772 attflor@aol.com
bkoffsky@snet.net Federal Bar No.: ct17505

8
See United States Sentencing Guideline 5G1.3(b).
9
U.S.S.G. 5G1.3(b)(1).

16
 Case 3:15-cr-00174-JCH Document 338 Filed 09/19/17 Page 17 of 17

CERTIFICATION

THIS IS TO CERTIFY that on September 19, 2017 a copy of the foregoing was filed

electronically [and served by mail on anyone unable to accept electronic filing]. Notice of this

filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system.

Parties may access this filing through the Courts system.

_/s/ Bruce D. Koffsky__

Bruce D. Koffsky

17