Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 1 of 70

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§
vs. § CAUSE NO.: 1:22-CR-15
§ FILED UNDER SEAL
ELMER STEWART RHODES, III §

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

COME NOW JAMES LEE BRIGHT, PHILLIP LINDER and EDWARD TARPLEY,

“Counsel” for Elmer Stewart Rhodes, hereinafter “Rhodes”, in the above referenced cause

number and file this Sentencing Memorandum for the Court’s consideration for sentencing.

I.

Counsel received the PSR from the Court assigned Probation Officer, Ms. Crystal Lustig,

hereinafter “PO”, on March 24, 2023. As mentioned in our earlier filed Objections to the PSR,

from all outward appearances it appears as if the Department of Justice itself wrote the “Offense
Conduct” portion of the PSR. It reads very similar to the Opening Statements made by Mr.

Nestler in the Rhodes’ trial. Counsel objected to the majority of the “Offense Conduct”

contained on pages 20 through 33 of the PSR and now files this Memorandum to further

supplement the earlier filed Objections.

II.

SENTENCING POST Blakely and Booker

As this Court is well aware, the law of federal sentencing and the Sentencing Reform Act

of 1984 have been in varying degrees of flux since the Supreme Court decided Blakely v.

Washington, 542 U.S 296 (2004). While it is clear that the Sentencing Guidelines are now

advisory in nature, there have been a handful of notable court decisions directing sentencing

courts on how to proceed.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 1

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 2 of 70

In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the court severed and excised two

provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act: the provision requiring a court to impose a sentence

within the Guideline range in the absence of circumstances justifying a departure, 18 U.S.C.

§3553(b)(1); and the provision that sets forth the appellate standard of review, 18 U.S.C.

§3742(e). The new sentencing scheme “requires a sentencing court to consider Guideline

ranges, see 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(4), but it requires the court to tailor the sentence in light of other

statutory concerns as well, see §3553(a).” Id at 245-246.

SENTENCING POST Rita, Gall and Kimbrough

The Supreme Court’s later decisions in Rita, Gall and Kimbrough have further clarified

the new sentencing scheme. Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007); Gall, 552 U.S. 38, 49-50

(2007); Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). While appellate courts may deem sentences imposed

within the applicable Guidelines range as presumptively reasonable, the sentencing court cannot

employ any such presumption. Rita, 551 U.S. at 351 (2007), Gall 552 U.S. 38 (2007);

Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85 (2007). At sentencing, the court must start by accurately calculating the

Guideline range, but then must consider fully the factors set forth in §3553(a) and impose a

sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory objectives of
sentencing. Rita, 551 U.S. at 347; Gall, 552 U.S. at 49-50. So, although the sentencing court

must consider the Guidelines, it has the authority to vary from the Guidelines for policy reasons,

particularly where the Sentencing Commission did not rely on empirical practices or data before

deciding on a particular offense level. Kimbrough, 552 U.S. 85, 109-111 (2007).

After Gall, it is now clear that sentencing courts should employ a three-step approach to

determining the appropriate sentence in a particular case. First, apply the Guidelines to

determine the advisory sentencing range; second, determine if a traditional Guideline departure

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

2
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 3 of 70

applies; and third, determine if a non-Guideline sentence, often called a “variance,” is

appropriate based on consideration of the §3553(a) factors. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S.

38, 50-51 (2007); Rita vs. United States, 551 U.S. 338 352-54 (2007); see, e.g., United States v.

Crosby, 397 F.3d 103, 112-13 (2d Cir. 2005).

The sentencing court mustconsider all of the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a), make an

individualized assessment based on the facts presented (Gall, 552 U.S. at 50), and “impose a

sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing.”
Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85, 101 (quoting 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)). In determining the

sentence, the court cannot “presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable.” Gall, 552 U.S. at

50. Finally, the district court “must adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for

meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing” Jd.

Il.

Therefore, as it stands today, under U.S.S.G. §1B1.1, this Court cannot simply sentence

Rhodes to the 135-168 months of imprisonment suggested by the PO in paragraph 195 on page

41 of the PSR without first considering all of the Specific Offender Characteristics listed in

U.S.S.G §5H1.1-§5H1.12, potential Departures listed in U.S.S.G §5K1 and §5K2, other relevant

sentencing factors contained in 28 U.S.C. §994 and then considering all of the potential

adjustments for things such Acceptance of Responsibility contained in U.S.S.G §3E1., etc. and

then any potential variances listed under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to craft a sentence that is sufficient

but not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory objectives of sentencing.

IV.

LAW REGARDING DEPARTURES & ADJUSTMENTS

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

3
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 4 of 70

U.S.S.G §5H1.1-§5H1.12 and 28 U.S.C. §994(c) and(d) list many specific reasons the

court can depart downward on behalf of a defendant. U.S.S.G §5K2 and 18 U.S.C. §3553(b)

provide the court a catchall reason to depart if some circumstance or set of circumstances present

in a particular case were not specifically addressed in the enumerated lists contained in U.S.S.G

§5H1.1-§5H1.12, 28 U.S.C. §994(d) and other provisions of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines.

The specific reasons for departure listed in U.S.S.G §5H1.1-§5H1.12 and 28 U.S.C.

§994(d) include a myriad of things the Court can consider for departures and things the Court

should generally not consider for a departure as well as six things that are forbidden for the Court

to take into consideration at sentencing: those being Race, Sex, National Origin, Creed, Religion

and Socio-Economic Status. U.S.S.G. §5H1.10.

Vv.

DEPARTURES & ADJUSTMENTS RELEVANT TO STEWART RHODES

Before this court can address the proper issues for variances contained in 18 U.S.C.

§3553(a), it must first make sure it arrives at a proper guideline level by considering if there are
any appropriate departures and/or adjustments that pertain specifically to Rhodes. As contained

in Rhodes’ PSR, there are no listed Downward Departures and there is no adjustment for

Acceptance of Responsibility.

Counsel for Rhodes would ask this Court to look at U.S.S.G. §5H1.11 as a potential

Departure or Adjustment because significant amounts of testimony and evidence adduced at trial
corroborated Rhodes’ military service combined with his 13 years as the founder and leader of
the Oath Keepers and as such, his history of disaster relief efforts and his voluntary security for

speakers and the public at large at sometimes violent venues such as Berkeley, Dallas, Ferguson,

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 4

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 5 of 70

D.C., etc. This provision applies to Rhodes because his actions over 13 years go “above and

beyond” what is customarily considered “community good works”. U.S. v. Canova, 412 F.3"

331 (2d CIR. 2005) and U.S. v Huber, 462 F.3d 945 (8" Cir. 2006). This Court is able to depart

downward for any one or more of the reasons listed under U.S.S.G §5H1.1-§5H1.12 and Title 28

USC §994(d) even absent any motion from the government. U.S. v Robinson, 741 F. 3 588 (5%
Cir. 2014).

In addition, as discussed and more thoroughly briefed in Counsel’s Objections to the

PSR, Rhodes should be given a 2-level departure for Acceptance of Responsibility.

Finally, U.S.S.G §5K2, which interprets Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(b), this Court may impose

a sentence below the range established by the applicable guidelines if the court finds (1) there

exists a mitigating circumstance or circumstances of any kind that have not been taken into

consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the Guidelines, or (2) to a degree

that has been affirmatively and specifically identified as a permissible ground for a downward

departure under the guidelines or policy statements issued under 28 U.S.C. §994(d) and U.S.S.G

§5H1.1-§5H1.12 AND (3) should result in a sentence different than that described.

Therefore, with regards to Rhodes, this Court is allowed to depart downward even absent

the request by the government. It therefore stands to reason that this Court can depart downward

as many levels as it so chooses to craft a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary

to accomplish the goals of sentencing.

The above listed factors are all things that this Court can take into consideration when

crafting a more appropriate sentence for Rhodes than the 135-168 months suggested by the PO in

her PSR. As provided in Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 101-102, “a district court’s job is not to

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 5

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 6 of 70

impose _a reasonable sentence but to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than

necessary to accomplish the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C §3553(a)”.

VI.

LAW REGARDING VARIANCES

As mentioned earlier in the cited Rita opinion and contained in the application

instructions of U.S.S.G §1B1.1, before the court can simply sentence someone to a guideline

sentence, it must follow a multistep process to first arrive at a base offense level, then consider

any applicable downward departures and adjustments that may affect the offense level, then must

consider fully the factors set forth in Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) to craft a sentence sufficient but

not greater than necessary to achieve the statutory objectives of sentencing. Section

3553(a)(4)(A)(i) directs the sentencing court to also consider the commentary included in Title

28 U.S.C. § 994(a)(2) which lists several factors for the court to consider in sentencing. As

provided in Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 101-102, “a district court’s job is not to impose a

reasonable sentence but to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to

accomplish the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C §3553(a)”.

Since Gall and Kimbrough, the clear trend is for sentencing courts to take the position

that there are no per se illegitimate grounds to consider in imposing a sentence below the

guideline range. United States vs. Cavera, 550 F3rd 180, 194 (2nd Cir. 2008)(en banc).

While the Federal Sentencing Guidelines remain in place, there are now seven sentencing

factors specifically set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) that the court must consider in crafting the

appropriate sentence. However, these can only be considered once the court has determined any

applicable departures. Title 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) provides that in determining the applicable

sentence, the court shall consider:

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

6
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 7 of 70

(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the

defendant [§3553(a)(1)]

(2) 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 [§3553(a)(2)(A)];

(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct [§3553(a)(2)(B)];

(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant [§3553(a)(2)(C)]; and

(D)to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical

care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner

[§3553(a)(2)(D)];

(3) the kinds of sentences available [§3553(a)(3)]

(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established in the Federal Sentencing

Guidelines [§3553(a)(4)(A-B)]

(5) any pertinent policy statement issued by the Sentencing Commission [§3553(a)(5)]

(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity [§3553(a)(6)]

(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims [§3553(a)(7)]

Therefore, as discussed above, this Court must not simply choose to sentence Rhodes to

the suggested guideline sentence of 135-168 months of imprisonment, as recommended by the

PO and the government in this case, but must consider other factors to craft a sentence which is

more appropriate, either by way of downward departure, a variance, or both.

a

VARIANCES RELEVANT TO STEWART RHODES

In addition to the possible downward departures discussed above, this Court can also

depart downward by way of a variance to satisfy the needed requirements of Title 18 U.S.C

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 7

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 8 of 70

§3553(a). As mentioned earlier in this memorandum and cited in the Rita, Gall and Kimbrough

decisions, after the sentencing court determines the starting guideline range and then applies any

needed downward departures, the court must then look to section 3553(a) to determine if the
sentence correctly considers the seven factors listed. If the suggested guideline sentence does

not accurately account for the seven listed factors, then the sentencing court can adjust the

sentence as needed.

In its analysis of factors to be considered in imposing a sentence under 3553(a), the Court

must start by considering the first of the seven, “the nature and circumstances of the offense and

the history and characteristics of the defendant.” Counsel for Mr. Rhodes would urge the Court

to take into consideration several important issues for the imposition of a sentence under this

section. Initially, Mr. Rhodes is an honorably discharged veteran of the United States Army. He

volunteered in June of 1983 and completed airborne school, as well as the initial phase of special
forces’ qualification course. Mr. Rhodes chose as a specialty rough terrain parachuting and, as a

result of this choice, suffered a compression fracture in his spine while attempting a low altitude

jump during a night mission jump in 1986. Mr. Rhodes underwent surgery at Fort Lewis,

Washington during which two steel rods were placed in his spine, and he was in a body cast for

several months. As a result of this injury, Mr. Rhodes was not able to continue his chosen career
in the military and was declared fifty-percent service-connected disabled for life.

After being honorably discharged from the United States Army, Mr. Rhodes began his

formal education, resulting in a Bachelor of Arts degree in Political Science from the University

of Nevada Las Vegas. While at UNLV, he was a straight-A student and ultimately graduated

summa cum laude. After graduation, he attended Yale Law School and earned his Juris Doctor

in the Spring of 2004. While at Yale, Mr. Rhodes was awarded the Judge William E. Miller

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

8
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 9 of 70

prize for the most outstanding paper concerning the Bill of Rights, “Solving the Puzzle of
‘Enemy Combatant’ Status”. After graduation from Yale, Mr. Rhodes clerked for Justice

Michael D. Ryan of the Nevada Supreme Court and then worked for several years at O’Neill &

Bagley in Polson, Montana focusing on appellate cases and brief writing.

Perhaps one of the most important factors before the Court to consider regarding the

“history and characteristics of the defendant” [§3553(a)(1)] is Mr. Rhodes’ founding and

establishment of an entirely volunteer organization named the Oath Keepers. If the history and

character of a man is to be judged by what he creates and how that organization functions within

and for the benefit of society, then it is imperative that the Court give great deference to Mr.

Rhodes for the 12 years of service and dedication of the Oath Keepers, as evinced through the

organizations’ history of community involvement and volunteerism in times of natural disasters

and civil unrest, in the determination and imposition of the sentence in this case. It should be

stated that the perception cultivated and amplified by some mainstream media outlets, politicians

and activists portraying the Oath Keepers as a “right-wing extremist” group is simply not borne

out by facts. Assisting fellow citizens in times of natural disasters, protecting them when under

siege from rioters and upholding the United States Constitution are not “extreme” ideals, they are

American ideals.

On April 19, 2009, partially as a result to the Federal Government’s response to

Hurricane Katrina, Stewart Rhodes founded the Oath Keepers at Lexington, Massachusetts. The

name of the organization is derived from the very oath that law enforcement and members of the

military take to “Support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Per § 8.05 of the Oath Keeper By Laws, “Our Mission: Oath Keepers is a non-partisan

association of currently serving military, reserves, National Guard, veterans, Peace Officers, and

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 9

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 10 of 70

Fire Fighters who will fulfill the Oath we swore, with the support of like minded citizens who
take an Oath to stand with us, to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign

and domestic, so help us God. Our Oath is to the Constitution.” As a man proud of his own

Hispanic heritage, Mr. Rhodes attempted to create and build an association that was diverse, one

that refused to tolerate racism or those who were willing to associate with others who tolerated or

promoted racism. As is detailed in the By Laws, § 8.02 (b) Restrictions on Membership “No

person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal

or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon

their race, nationality, creed, or color, shall be entitled to be a member or associate member.”

Once again, public perception and facts are greatly divergent from who the members of
the Oath Keepers are as individuals and as an organization. It can be easily surmised that labels
such as “white nationalist” and “racist” were falsely attributed to the Oath Keepers in an attempt

to further political narratives, however, the facts easily prove that those narratives are baseless.

In addition to the Oath Keepers own bylaws, which directly contradict these false labels, the

makeup of the membership itself shows the narratives are incorrect as well. As this Court is

aware, the Vice-President of the entire Oath Keepers organization was an African-American, as

was Michael Greene, a.k.a. Whip, a close friend and colleague of the Oath Keepers who helped

the organization oversee multiple operations across the country over the span of many years. In
addition to those who filled leadership roles and partnerships with the Oath Keepers, many of its

members were minorities, including one of the members on trial with Mr. Rhodes, Jessica

Watkins, is transgender. The diverse leadership and membership of the Oath Keepers show that
the organization was an inclusive group that reflects the character of the man who founded the

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 10

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 11 of 70

organization, a group not united by common race or religion or gender, but one united in

devotion to the United States Constitution and in service to its fellow citizens.

Much as the character of those within the Oath Keepers has been misconstrued and

mischaracterized by others, so too has their history and actions. The organization from its

inception was dedicated to philanthropy, aiding others in times of both civil unrest as well as

natural disasters, community preparedness and legal education. Those efforts are the natural

result of the underlying character and principles of its founder and is reflective of his intent for
those principles to be one of the foundations of the Oath Keepers organization.
In August of 2017, the Oath Keepers brought together members from all over the United

States to participate in humanitarian and security efforts in Texas in response to Hurricane

Harvey. Based in Mauriceville, Texas, members of the Oath Keepers provided security for the

local Fire Department, helped provide convoys of goods and medical supplies to surrounding

areas that had been flooded by the hurricane and filled in the gaps FEMA and the National Guard

had trouble accessing safely. The Oath Keepers also helped to perform wellness checks on

stranded citizens. Mr. Rhodes himself was personally greeted and thanked by the African

American Mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, for all of the assistance and service provided by

the Oath Keepers. This type of civic service to others was again on display after another natural

disaster, this time in Puerto Rico. Spearheaded by Mr. Rhodes, the Oath Keepers spent more

than three weeks escorting teams of nurses in the distribution of medical aid, performance of
wellness checks as well as hurricane clean up.

Not unlike during times of natural disaster, so too were the Oath Keepers on the front line

of assistance and protection of others during times of civil unrest. Mr. Rhodes tasked his

members with providing security details and services during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

11
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 12 of 70

and Louisville, Kentucky. The Oath Keepers were asked by local residents, to provide protection

for a black-owned bakery as well as other businesses, some minority owned, from violent mobs

during the riots in Ferguson, Missouri following the death of Michael Brown. Oath Keepers,

likewise, provided the same protection for businesses in Louisville, Kentucky during the riots

following the death of Breonna Taylor, being invited by the owner of a Cuban-American

restaurant to protect his and other businesses as they were under siege. During these last two

events, the Oath Keepers remained calm and on-point to provide the protection for which they

were tapped and did not lose focus or give in to the threats and aggressive behavior of the rioters.

During the 2020 calendar year, the Oath Keepers, and specifically Mr. Rhodes, provided

hundreds of personal security details at campaign and political events throughout the country as

rioters attacked attendees.

While not practical, and to preserve brevity, there are many more instances of the Oath
Keepers providing these types of assistance across the entire nation that will not be enumerated
here, however, the civic and protective actions of the Oath Keepers are well-documented. In

fact, the historically lawful actions of the Oath Keepers were detailed in trial by the testimony of
SA Palian. Upon cross examination by Mr. Linder, SA Palian conceded that in the previous

twelve years there had not been a single prosecution from their various personal security details

or mission during these times of civil unrest or natural disasters. In its totality, the facts show

that the Oath Keepers were dedicated to civic service during calamitous events, be they natural

disasters or dangerous and violent riots, and that race, creed, gender or religion played no part in

its belief structure or in determining who would or would not be the beneficiary of its valuable
time and service. The Oath Keepers aided all Americans.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

12
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 13 of 70

The character of the Oath Keepers reflects the character of the man who created it. With

an unshakeable belief in the United States Constitution, both the man and the organization not

only championed the idea of freedom and all that it entails, but they put those beliefs into action,

responding when called to provide aid to those in need and protection to those in danger. If a
person is judged by their character, that character is proven by their actions, and if one is honest,
the character of Mr. Rhodes is easily settled upon. From its inception, Mr. Rhodes gave his life

to the Oath Keepers. Certainly, this Court too should consider this in the totality of “the history
and characteristics of the defendant.”

In the Court’s ongoing analysis of the factors in determining the appropriate sentence, it

seems exceptionally difficult to properly address the first part of 3553(a)(2), “nature and

circumstances of the offense”, considering that the defendant has continually asserted his

innocence and challenged the assertions and indictments of the government for nearly a year and
a half. How does one address the “nature and circumstances of the offense” when the very

offense in question is based on a law that was inappropriately charged, indicted and prosecuted?

As asserted directly by Mr. Rhodes via this Sentencing Memorandum, everything he

wrote or said in his Open Letters to President Trump, to the American people, in the Oath

Keeper chats and meetings, in multiple Calls to Actions and other various statements was

protected political speech pursuant to the standards set by United States Supreme Court in

Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969). None of his protected speech incited or encouraged

imminent violent or unlawful acts, nor were any likely to occur as a result of his speech. In

particular, nothing Mr. Rhodes wrote or published concerned the direct prevention of the transfer
of power between then President Trump and President-elect Biden. To the contrary, Mr. Rhodes

was focused at that time on getting President Trump to use his power and authority while still in

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 13

 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 14 of 70

office. (See his Open Letters to President Trump on January 14" and 16) In part, Mr. Rhodes

stated, “Prepare to walk the same path as the Founding Fathers of condemnation of an

illegitimate regime, nullification/mass non-compliance, defiance, mutual defense, and

resistance.” The context of this was always in regard to after January 20", 2021, when the

transfer of power to President Biden had legally been passed. Like so often in this prosecution,

here too the full context of his words have been overlooked and ignored. On January 14, 2021,

Rhodes published a letter to the Oath Keepers nationwide. This email was entitled “RED

ALERT! OATH KEEPERS WARNING PART 1”. Highlighted in this publication, like so

many times before, as the Government is fully aware, Mr. Rhodes clearly states in bold letters

“As always, we are not calling for the initiation of violence.”

The third and fourth factors of Title 18 U.S.C §3553(a)(3) and (4) relate to the need for

the court to consider the kinds of sentences available and the kinds of sentences established

under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. As per paragraphs 193 through 206 of the PSR, since

the offenses of Rhodes’ convictions are Class C Felonies, probation is even authorized per

statute. The only prohibition from the Court granting Rhodes probation is the Guideline Range

that the PO has incorrectly placed on Rhodes. It is the suggested sentencing guideline range in

this case that restricts this Court’s ability to impose a more appropriate sentence than that being

recommended by the PO. However, if this Court were to depart or vary downward enough then
this Court would have significantly more discretion in the type of sentence it could assess against

Rhodes.

The fifth factor listed under section 3553(a)(5) asks the court to consider any pertinent

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission. Since the Sentencing Guidelines have

been made advisory rather than mandatory, the Sentencing Commission’s goal has been to have

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

14
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 15 of 70

the sentencing courts look at the individual characteristics of each individual defendant and

specific case and promote fair and individualized sentencing as to each defendant.

The sixth factor the sentencing court must consider under section 3553(a)(6) is the need

to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity. There are numerous other co-defendants in this case

as well as thousands of other related defendants. Approximately 450 sentences have been handed

down so far on J6 related cases. See attached Exhibit A and B. Therefore, this Court must look

at and consider the other co-defendant’s sentences as a comparison. At present, at least 450

other related defendants have been sentenced with the largest sentence being 120 months with

numerous sentences being less than 5 years. See Exhibit A and B.

The seventh factor for the sentencing court to consider under section 3553(a) is the need

for the defendant to provide any restitution to the victims. This was addressed by the probation

officer in paragraph 117 on page 30 of the PSR. However, Rhodes would object to his need to

pay restitution as the evidence at trial showed that he was not responsible for the crowd that

breached the Capitol and caused any of the damage.

VIII.

CONCLUSION

Under the procedure described in the line of cases and code provisions cited above,

Counsel for Rhodes would ask this Court to consider any downward departures, adjustments or

variances that it deems applicable to Rhode, then craft a sentence that fully complies with all of

the sentencing factors listed under USSG 3553(a) which is required to be sufficient
but not

greater than necessary to achieve the statutory objectives of sentencing.

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES

15
 Case 1:22-cr-00015-APM Document 570 Filed 05/08/23 Page 16 of 70

WHEREFORE, Counsel for Rhodes would therefore ask this court to sentence Rhodes to

a sentence of “time served”, which is substantially less than the suggested sentence by the PO in

her PSR.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

/s/ PHILLIP A. LINDER

PHILLIP A. LINDER

3300 OAK LAWN AVENUE, SUITE 700

DALLAS, TEXAS 75219
(214) 252- 9900 OFFICE
(214) 252-9902 FAx
[email protected]
TEXAS BAR NO. 12363560

/s/ JAMES LEE BRIGHT

JAMES LEE BRIGHT

3300 OAK LAWN AVENUE, SUITE 700

DALLAS, TEXAS 75219
TEL: (214) 720-7777
FAX: (214) 720-7778
[email protected]
TEXAS BAR NO: 24001786

/S/ EDWARD L. TARPLEY, JR

EDWARD L. TARPLEY, JR

819 JOHNSON STREET

ALEXANDRIA, LOUISIANA 71301
(318) 487-1460
[email protected]
LA. BAR No: 12657

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM- RHODES 16