Documents From Rosica's Public Defender
Documents From Rosica's Public Defender
WILLIAM ROSICA,
Defendant.
_____________________________________
MARK D. HOSKEN, Supervisory Assistant Federal Public Defender for the Western
1. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York, and I represent the defendant,
William Rosica.
Investigation Report (hereinafter PSR), dated December 21, 2017, and expected to be revised
INTRODUCTION
3. On October 5, 2017, William Rosica pleaded guilty to one count of
and Mr. Rosica agreed that this Court should impose a 60 month term of imprisonment. Should
1
Case 6:17-cr-06139-FPG Document 37 Filed 01/11/18 Page 2 of 5
this Court reject this agreed upon sentence, Mr. Rosica must be afforded an opportunity to
5. The government and Mr. Rosica agreed the appropriate sentencing range pursuant
6. Counsel reviewed the PSR with Mr. Rosica. Based on the review, I requested
changes to the PSR by P.O. Fish. Officer Fish agreed to make many of the requested changes.
There remain two outstanding issues that cannot be resolved without this Court’s intervention.
OBJECTIONS
8. William Rosica objects to the inclusion of the following paragraphs in the PSR.
These paragraphs are numbered 215 through 225 and are found under the heading, “ROSICA’s
Past Allegations of Stalking.” Mr. Rosica asks this Court to exclude the information or, at the
very least, not consider the information when determining whether to accept the agreed upon
or controverted matter. This requirement may be dispensed with should this Court determine a
ruling is unnecessary as the material will not affect sentencing, or because the Court will not
10. Here, the paragraphs claim stalking behavior by Mr. Rosica. There are numerous
unidentified individuals who claim Mr. Rosica engaged in other unrelated stalking behavior. Mr.
2
Case 6:17-cr-06139-FPG Document 37 Filed 01/11/18 Page 3 of 5
sources. Mr. Rosica is unable to rebut such vague and unreliable information. The inclusion or
consideration of such information is unfair, improper and violates Mr. Rosica’s right to Due
11. Mr. Rosica also objects to the inclusion or consideration of the information
contained in the paragraphs numbered 179-190, 199, and 209. The PSR also relies on these
paragraphs to deny Mr. Rosica’s reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The PSR contends
Mr. Rosica should not be granted acceptance for two reasons: denial of responsibility for the
12. Section 5E1.1 of the U.S.S.G. recommends a three point reduction should a
acknowledged Mr. Rosica’s acceptance of responsibility. Later paragraphs reject that finding for
13. The PSR claims that a review of Mr. Rosica’s recorded jail calls to his family and
his girlfriend evidence a lack of acceptance. It is true that Mr. Rosica had telephone
conversations with family and friends in which he told them he had a disagreement with the
factual basis in the plea agreement. However, this should not and cannot override Mr. Rosica’s
testimony provided under oath before this Court. Similarly, Mr. Rosica’s responses to P.O. Fish
during the presentence interview were consistent with his sworn testimony before this Court at
the time of the entry of his guilty pleas. Again, Mr. Rosica reaffirms his sworn statements before
Your Honor and asks this Court grant him the reduction for acceptance of responsibility.
3
Case 6:17-cr-06139-FPG Document 37 Filed 01/11/18 Page 4 of 5
14. The PSR claims three recorded telephone calls between Mr. Rosica and his
girlfriend depict a continuation of criminal conduct (¶190) and the commission of future criminal
conduct (¶209). For the reasons set out below, the information discussed in these recorded calls
do not evidence criminal conduct and therefore, do not support a denial of acceptance of
responsibility.
15. Based on the conclusions in the PSR, it appears the claim is Mr. Rosica engaged
16. In United States v. Jordan, 591 F.Supp. 2d 686, 721-722 (SDNY 2008), the Court
denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial after conviction for cyberstalking. The Court set
out the three elements the government must prove to support such a conviction. These are: (1)
use of a facility of interstate commerce to engage in a course of conduct that caused substantial
emotional distress or placed one in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury; (2) that in
doing so, the defendant acted knowingly and with the intent to injure, harass, intimidate, or cause
substantial emotional distress or to place one in reasonable fear of her death or serious bodily
injury; and (3) the defendant must act with the specific intention to cause the wrongs described
above. Further, prior to determining whether there was an attempt, the Court required a finding
that the defendant had the intent to commit the crime and took a substantial step towards the
commission of the crime. Here, none of the conduct or conclusions identified support new acts
of cyberstalking. At most, the claimed conduct may be a dubious choice. However, it is not
4
Case 6:17-cr-06139-FPG Document 37 Filed 01/11/18 Page 5 of 5
CONCLUSION
17. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant asks this Court to strike ¶¶215-225 and
¶¶179-190, 199 and 209 from the PSR. Further, should this Court determine it will not strike
these paragraphs, it is requested Your Honor not consider the information when imposing
sentence.
18. Alternatively, the defendant recognizes this Court may decide not to resolve these
objections if such a ruling is unnecessary as the material will not affect sentencing pursuant to
11(C)(1)(C). This Court may decide to simply impose the agreed upon sentence of 60 months as