Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 480
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`WILLIESTEINA JACOBS,
`
`Defendant.
`
`-X
`
`X
`
`MEMORANDUM & ORDER
`14-CR-0160 (WFK)
`
`WILLIAM F. KUNTZ, II, United States District Judge:
`
`On July 26,2016, ajury found Williesteina Atlanta Jacobs ("Defendant") guilty on 21 of 27 counts
`of Aiding and Assisting in the Preparation of False Tax Returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §
`7206(2). The Court now sentences her and provides a complete statement of reasons pursuant to
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2) of those factors set forth by Congress and the President and contained in
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). For the reasons discussed below. Defendant is hereby sentenced to 24 months
`of incarceration, one year of supervised release with special conditions that include payment
`restitution in the amount of $31,188.00, and payment of a $2,100.00 special assessment.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On March 21, 2014, the United States indicted Defendant on 27 counts of Aiding and
`
`Assisting in the Preparation of False Tax Returns. See Indictment at 3, ECF No. 1. On July 26,
`
`2016, ajury entered a verdict finding Defendant guilty of Counts 1 through 8,12 through 21, and
`
`25 through 27; the jury found Defendant not guilty of Counts 9 through 11 and 22 through 24.
`
`See Jury Verdict at 1, ECF No. 60. The Court hereby sentences Defendant and sets forth its
`
`reasons for Defendant's sentence using the rubric of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors pursuant to
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2).
`
`I.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`18 U.S.C. § 3553 outlines the procedures for imposing sentence in a criminal case. If and
`
`when a district court chooses to impose a sentence outside of the Sentencing Guidelines range,
`
`the court "shall state in open court the reasons for its imposition of the particular sentence, and ..
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 2 of 10 PageID #: 481
`
`. the specific reason for the imposition of a sentence different from that described" in the
`
`Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2). The court must also "state[] with specificity" its reasons for
`
`so departing "in a statement of reasons form." Id.
`
`"The sentencing court's written statement of reasons shall be a simple, fact-specific
`
`statement explaining why the guidelines range did not account for a specific factor or factors
`
`under § 3553(a)." United States v. Davis, 08-CR-0332, 2010 WL 1221709, at *1 (E.D.N.Y.
`
`Mar. 29,2010) (Weinstein, J.). Section 3553(a) provides a set of seven factors for the Court to
`
`consider in determining what sentence to impose on a criminal defendant. The Court addresses
`
`each in turn.
`
`II.
`
`Analysis
`
`A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense and the History and
`Characteristics of the Defendant
`
`The first § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "the nature and circumstances of
`
`the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1).
`
`Defendant was bom on April 26,1961, in Harlem in New York, New York. Presentence
`
`Investigation Report ("PSR") H 46, ECF No. 63. Although Defendant does not know whether
`
`her parents were married, her father "was an active parent and supported the family" during his
`
`lifetime, but he passed away when Defendant was two years old. Id. Thereafter, Defendant, her
`
`three siblings, and her two half siblings were raised by their mother, who relied on public
`
`assistance, in a low-income household in Brooklyn, New York, and later in Bronx, New York.
`
`Id. 46, 49. While Defendant "reported [having] a good relationship and frequent contact with
`
`all of her siblings," she also explained that, when she was young, they "always" told her "she
`
`was not loved" because she did not physically resemble them. Id. ^ 49. Defendant's sole
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 3 of 10 PageID #: 482
`
`reported father figure was her mother's friend, William Hopkins, who resided in Defendant's
`
`home until she was twelve years old and who she described as "very supportive and someone
`
`who helped make [her and her family's] lives better." Id. K 47. Mr. Hopkins passed away "from
`
`blunt head trauma" sustained in 1979. Id. Although she had several other romantic
`
`relationships. Defendant's mother currently lives alone in the Bronx. Id. 48. She is retired and
`
`suffers from diabetes as well as "other unspecified issues," and Defendant reported that she
`
`knows of Defendant's conviction, but "doesn't understand it." Id.
`
`When she was 16 years old. Defendant entered into a relationship with Steven Strong. Id.
`
`^ 51. Although the two never married because Defendant "did not agree with Mr. Strong's
`
`lifestyle," which involved "hanging out in the streets," the two were in an on-and-off relationship
`
`for 12 to 14 years. Id. Defendant and Mr. Strong have three children: Princess Jacobs, a New
`
`York City Police Department officer; Precious Jacobs, a partner at a Chicago law firm; and
`
`Steven Strong, Jr., who is currently incarcerated for possessing a weapon. Id. While Defendant
`
`raised Princess and Precious and Steven resided with his father. Defendant was an active parent
`
`and provided financial support. Id.
`
`At the age of 20, Defendant began a romantic relationship with Winston Moxey. Id. f 52.
`
`Defendant and Mr. Moxey also have three children: Passionete Jacobs, who is employed by the
`
`Federal Emergency Management Agency, is a member of the United States Army Reserves, and
`
`is a plumber; Princeton Jacobs, who is a clerical worker for Defendant's tax preparation
`
`business; and Prince Jacobs, Princeton's twin brother, who works as a baggage handler at John P.
`
`Kennedy International Airport in Queens, New York. Id. Defendant and Mr. Moxey remained
`
`in a romantic relationship for 12 years, after which time he moved to Florida, but Mr. Moxey
`
`provided no financial support to Defendant, even when their children were young. Id.
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 4 of 10 PageID #: 483
`
`Defendant has a disjointed educational history: She attended the High School of Fashion
`
`Industries in Manhattan, New York, but she dropped out during tenth grade because the other
`
`students' behavior—^"cutting class[] and destroying property including windows"—^made her
`
`feel unsafe. Id. 172. She reported that she got her GED, but this could not be confirmed in the
`
`New York State Education Department's database. Id. She enrolled in an accounting program at
`
`New York City College of Technology in Brooklyn, id. ^ 70, and transferred to a similar
`
`program at York College in Queens, which provided her a more convenient commute, but left
`
`school after three years to raise her children, id.
`
`69-70. In light of these limitations and in an
`
`effort to support her large family financially. Defendant began to perform tax preparation
`
`services in 1989. Id. H 73. In 1992, she registered International Professional Business Services
`
`as a domestic business corporation and was its sole owner and operator. Id. She also performed
`
`tax preparation services through the entity Daughters of Jacobs Business Enterprise, Inc. Id.
`
`Both businesses are technically dissolved, but Defendant still actively performs tax preparation
`
`services. Id.
`
`Beginning in or around 2010, the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") launched an
`
`investigation into Defendant's tax preparation activities. M ^ 8. The investigation included
`
`identifying certain of Defendant's clients and interviewing them about their tax returns and
`
`experiences with Defendant. M H 13. It also included an undercover operation in which an IRS
`
`agent, posing as a taxpayer, asked Defendant to prepare his 2009 tax retum. Id. T| 18. The
`
`agent's tax retum would have generated a tax liability if prepared correctly, but the tax retum
`
`Defendant prepared indicated the agent was entitled to a tax refund. Id. This was because
`
`Defendant "falsified nearly $12,000 in deductions that were not based on any information
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 5 of 10 PageID #: 484
`
`provided to the defendant by the undercover agent," and "fabricated a business loss of
`
`approximately $580." Id,
`
`Based upon the information obtained from the investigation, the government indicted
`
`Defendant. Indictment
`
`1-7. Because Defendant pleaded not guilty on all counts, the case
`
`proceeded to trial, where it was determined that the tax loss caused by the falsified returns
`
`charged in the Indictment was $31,188.00. See PSR HH 1,16. Trial testimony from several of
`
`Defendant's clients whose returns were not charged in the Indictment established an additional
`
`tax loss of $28,008.00. Id. ^ 17. Furthermore, the IRS's investigation established a tax loss from
`
`related conduct of $148,670.00. Id. ^ 18. In total. Defendant is responsible for $207,866.00 in
`
`tax loss—an amount estimated to be "highly conservative," as it is based on an analysis of about
`
`120 of the at least 3,650 returns Defendant prepared in the relevant time period—^that is, the
`
`2007,2008, and 2009 tax years. Id. ^ 20. Defendant also owes the IRS approximately
`
`$13,000.00 in unpaid personal income taxes. Addendum to PSR 78, ECF No. 69.
`
`Defendant has been at liberty since her arrest and subsequent release on $150,000.00
`
`bond on March 25,2014. PSR at 1. She has continued to prepare and file tax returns using her
`
`daughter Passionete's Electronic Filing Identification Number (Defendant's was revoked due to
`
`the 2010 investigation), conduct that is legal and is not precluded by the conditions of her
`
`supervised release. Id. H 23. Indeed, the supervising Pretrial Services officer has advised that
`
`Defendant has complied with all Court-ordered conditions of release. Id. \ 2. Defendant
`
`experiences pain from knee surgery for a torn meniscus sustained in 2013, which she treats with
`
`various painkillers, including Ibuprofen. Id. ^ 58. A psychiatric evaluation concluded Defendant
`
`has agoraphobia. Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood, and Personality Disorder with
`
`obsessive-compulsive features. Id. ^ 64. Nevertheless, prior to and during her release,
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 6 of 10 PageID #: 485
`
`Defendant provided financial assistance to Princeton and Prince, and acted as a primary caretaker
`
`for Passionete's two children so that Passionete can maintain a job. Id. ^ 52.
`
`B. The Need for the Sentence Imposed
`
`The second § 3553(a) factor instructs the Court to consider "the need for the sentence
`
`imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to
`
`provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
`
`(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the defendant
`
`with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in
`
`the most effective manner." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2).
`
`The Court's sentence punishes Defendant for violating federal law and is crafted to deter
`
`her and others from engaging in similar criminal activity in the future. The Court takes into
`
`account the fact that Defendant is not compliant with her personal tax obligations and may or
`
`may not have continued to prepare false tax returns even after her conviction. See Gov't
`
`Sentencing Mem. at 6, ECF No. 71. The Court also takes into account Defendant's need to
`
`provide for her children and grandchildren and her compliance with the conditions of her release
`
`while out on bond.
`
`C. The Kinds of Sentences Available
`
`The third § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to detail "the kinds of sentences available"
`
`for Defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(3).
`
`Defendant was found guilty of 21 counts of Aiding and Assisting in the Preparation of
`
`False Tax Returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2), for which she faces a maximum term of
`
`imprisonment of three years for each count, which may run consecutively or concurrently. See
`
`26 U.S.C. § 7206(2). If a term of imprisonment is imposed, the Court may also impose a term of
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 7 of 10 PageID #: 486
`
`supervised release of up to one year per count, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(3), where multiple terms
`
`must run concurrently, id. § 3624(e). Because the offense is a Class E felony. Defendant may
`
`also be sentenced to a term of probation of not less than one nor more than five years, see id. §
`
`3561(c)(1), with one of the following conditions unless extraordinary circumstances exist: a fine,
`
`restitution, or community service, see id. § 3563(a)(2). Defendant also faces a maximum fine of
`
`$250,000.00 per count, see 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b), and payment of the mandatory special
`
`assessment of $100.00 per count (totaling $2,100.00), see 18 U.S.C. § 3013. Pursuant to United
`
`States V. Bok, 156 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. 1998), Defendant may be required to pay restitution as a
`
`condition of supervised release, in the amount of taxes owed to the IRS for the counts of
`
`conviction, which amounts to $31,188.00.
`
`D. The Kinds of Sentence and the Sentencing Range Established For Defendant's
`Offenses
`
`The fourth § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to discuss "the kinds of sentence and the
`
`sentencing range established for... the applicable category of offense committed by the
`
`applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(4)(A).
`
`Guidelines §2X1.4 applies to violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(2) and, per Guidelines §
`
`2T 1.4(a)(1) and 2T1.4, sets a base offense level of 16. See United States Sentencing
`
`Commission, Guidelines Manual, §§ 2T1.4(a)(1), 2T4.1 (Nov. 2016) ("USSG" or "Guidelines").
`
`Because Defendant committed the instant offense while employed as a tax preparer, the offense
`
`level is increased by two levels. Id. § 2X1.4(b)(1)(B). Because Defendant has no criminal
`
`history, see PSR 39-44, she has a criminal history score of zero and a criminal history
`
`category of one, see USSG ch. 5, pt. A. Given a total offense level of 18 and a criminal history
`
`category of one, the Guidelines suggest a term of imprisonment of between 27 and 33 months.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 8 of 10 PageID #: 487
`
`USSG ch. 5, pt. A. Defendant may also be sentenced to: a term of supervised release of one year
`
`per count, id. § 5D 1.2(a)(3); a fine of between $6,000.00 and $60,000.00 per count, id. §
`
`5E 1.2(c)(3), (h)(1); payment of the costs of prosecution, id. § 5E1.5; and restitution, id. § 5E1.1.
`
`The Guidelines suggest Defendant is ineligible for probation. Id. § 5B1.1 cmt. n.2.
`
`E. Pertinent Policy Statenient(s) of the Sentencing Commission
`
`The fifth § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to evaluate "any pertinent policy statement.
`
`.. issued by the Sentencing Commission." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(5).
`
`Guidelines Introductory Commentary to Chapter 2, Part T, which pertains to offenses
`
`involving taxation, explains that criminal tax laws are designed to protect the public interest in
`
`preserving the integrity of the tax system. USSG ch. 2, pt. T, intro. cmt. It further explains the
`
`Government has limited resources with which to prosecute violations, particularly relative to the
`
`estimated incidence of violations. Id. Public deterrence is thus an especially important
`
`consideration when imposing sentence in cases like the instant case. See id.
`
`F. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
`
`The sixth § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to consider "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).
`
`Several courts in this District have imposed within-Guidelines sentences for similar
`
`crimes. See, e.g.., United States v. Campbell, 142 F. Supp. 3d 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (Glasser, J.)
`
`(sentencing defendant convicted of 19 counts of fraudulent tax-related conduct, resulting in a
`
`loss of approximately $232,473.00, to 24 months in prison and one year of supervised release
`
`and ordering restitution); Judgment, United States v. Cadet, 08-CR-0458 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 15,
`
`2010) (Garaufis, J.) (sentencing defendant convicted of 16 counts of fraudulent tax-related
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 9 of 10 PageID #: 488
`
`conduct, resulting in a loss of approximately $208,000, to 33 months in prison and one year of
`
`supervised release and ordering payment of restitution). In many other cases in this District,
`
`however, courts have imposed non-custodial sentences where defendants have pleaded guilty to
`
`similar crimes. See, e.g.. Judgment, United States v. Baynes, 15-CR-0139 (E.D.N.Y. June 3,
`
`2016) (Matsumoto, J.) (sentencing defendant who pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent tax-
`
`related conduct, resulting in a loss of approximately $86,112.43, to no term of imprisonment,
`
`four years of probation, and payment of restitution); Judgment, United States v. Marine, 15-CR-
`
`0158 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 2, 2015) (Mauskopf, J.) (sentencing defendant who pleaded guilty to one
`
`count of fraudulent tax-related conduct, resulting in a loss of approximately $145,994.00, to no
`
`term of imprisonment, three years of probation, and payment of restitution); Judgment, United
`
`States V. Halbreich, 14-CR-0256 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2014) (Brodie, J.) (sentencing defendant
`
`who pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent tax-related conduct, resulting in a tax loss of
`
`approximately $104,978.00, to no term of imprisonment, two years of probation and payment of
`
`restitution); see also United States v. Walker, 1 l-CR-0282 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 2012) (Korman,
`
`J.) (sentencing defendant who pleaded guilty to two counts of tax fraud, and whose incarceration
`
`would have been extraordinarily challenging for defendant's family, to five years of probation
`
`with 180 days of intermittent (weekends) confinement). And the Second Circuit has affirmed
`
`downward departures where a Guidelines sentence would impose extraordinary hardship on a
`
`defendant's family, and particularly in cases where defendants are "solely responsible for the
`
`upbringing of... children." United States v. Johnson, 964 F.2d 124, 129 (2d Cir. 1992); see
`
`also, e.g.. United States v. Galante, 111 F.3d 1029 (2d Cir. 1997) (similar); United States v.
`
`Alba, 933 F.2d 1117 (2d Cir. 1991) (affirming downward departure where defendant's
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cr-00160-WFK Document 74 Filed 04/28/17 Page 10 of 10 PageID #: 489
`
`imprisonment would harm adult relatives needing special care and might result in destruction of
`
`family unit).
`
`For the reasons stated in this memorandum and order, and considering the other six §
`
`3553(a) factors, the Court's sentence avoids unwarranted sentence disparities.
`
`G. The Need to Provide Restitution
`
`Finally, the seventh § 3553(a) factor requires the Court to touch upon "the need to
`
`provide restitution to any victims of the offense." 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(7). As discussed relative
`
`to the third and fourth factors, the Court may order restitution in the amount of $31,188.00.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`A sentence of 24 months of incarceration, one year of supervised release with special
`
`conditions that include payment of restitution in the amount of $31,188.00, and payment of a
`
`$2,100.00 special assessment is appropriate and comports with the dictates of § 3553. This
`
`sentence is consistent with, and sufficient but no greater than necessary to accomplish, the
`
`purposes of § 3553(a)(2).
`
`The Court expressly adopts the factual findings of the Presentence Investigation Report
`
`and the Addendum to the Presentence Investigation Report and imposes all of the special
`
`conditions of release proposed by the Probation Department.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`s/WFK
`
`N. WILLIAM F. KUNTZ/II
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`Dated: April 28, 2017
`Brooklyn, New York
`
`10
`
`