U.S. Rules Gov. Shutdown no Excuse to Forgo Prison Sentence

July 11, 2014 by Charisma Miller Brooklyn Daily Eagle

Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Share this:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has overturned the decision of a Brooklyn federal judge who sentenced a defendant to probation in lieu of imprisonment on account of the 2013 government shut down that limited the resources of the federal court system.

Young Park pleaded guilty in June 2012, to filing a false corporate tax return. According to court records, Park moved business cash receipts from his business account and filed tax returns that understated his actual business income. This was not Park’s first offense of a financial nature. In 1998, Park was convicted of mail fraud due to his involvement in a Ponzi scheme, which caused investors to lose approximately $7 million. Given Park’s prior fraud conviction, federal sentencing guidelines mandated that for the 2012 tax fraud, Park be sentenced to 15 to 20 months behind bars.

Park’s case was presented in front of Brooklyn federal Judge Frederic Block at the time the federal government moved to shut down a majority of government operations, causing a severe strain on the federal justice system. At the time, the U.S. government began the process of a partial shutdown as the contentions and lengthy dispute over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — President Barack Obama’s signature health care reform law — reached a tipping point. About 800,000 federal employees had been told not to report to work and a number of others were scheduled to be furloughed if the shutdown persisted.

Against this backdrop, Block determined that the “economic problems” caused by the shutdown warranted Park’s sentence be reduced to probation. In his ruling, Block noted, “if not for the financial pressures that the court has,” he would have sentenced Park to period of incarceration.

Block concluded, the federal court system “can’t afford the luxury of paying another $28,000 to keep [Park] in jail under the circumstances.”

The government appealed arguing that Block’s sentence determination was in error as it did not adhere to accepted sentencing guidelines. The Circuit Court agreed. Appeals of a defendant’s sentence require inquiry as to the rationale behind the lower court’s sentence decision. In Park’s case, the lower court expressed, in no uncertain terms, that the reason for the lessened sentenced was solely based on the government shut down.

Block cautioned, on the record, that “I’m making the record that I am not going to put [Park] in jail only because of the economic plight we are facing today.”

The court of appeals viewed this action in error because, on the one hand, the lower court only factored in the cost of incarceration in light of the government shut down as the primary sentencing factor. Without taking into consideration additional sentencing factors such as the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, deter criminal conduct and protect the public, the lower court “committed procedural error,” the court of appeals ruled.

On the other hand, the higher court found the government’s cost of incarceration an inappropriate sentencing factor.

“[N]o sentencing factor can reasonably be read to encompass the cost of incarceration, [n]or does the statute permit the sentencing court to balance the cost of incarceration against the sentencing goals,” the appeals court stated.

The higher court went further to note that Block’s decision to give Park probation in lieu of a prison sentence was substantively unreasonable in that the “cost of incarceration, much less a political phenomenon styled a ‘government shutdown,’ is not a permissible factor in determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment.”

Accordingly, the court ordered Park’s sentence vacated and remanded the case back to the lower court for resentencing. The court did note, however, that probation was still an option for Park, as long as the sentence adheres to appropriate sentencing guidelines.

Elissa Hart-Mahan of the U.S. Justice Department argued for the government, and Patricia Pileggi appeared on Park’s behalf.