2

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 41
1 JA M ES A .L A SSA R T (SB N 40913)

N IC H O L A S C .L A R SO N (SB N 275870)
2 M U R PH Y ,PEA R SO N ,B R A D L EY & FEEN EY
88K earny Street,10th Floor
3 SanFrancisco,C A 94108
T elephone: (415)788-1900
4 Facsim ile: (415)393-8087
Em ail:
JL assart@ m pbf.com
5
N L arson@ m pbf.com
6 A ttorne ys forD efendant
L EL A N D Y EE
7
8
U N IT ED ST A T ES D IST R IC T C O U R T
N O R T H ER N D IST R IC T O FC A L IFO R N IA
10
SA N FR A N C ISC O D IV ISIO N
11 U N IT ED ST A T ES O FA M ER IC A ,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
L EL A N D Y EE,
15
D efendant.
16
C ase N o. C R 14-00196-C R B -2
D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES
SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M A N D
M O T IO N FO R D EPA R T U R E
D ate:
T im e:
Judge:
C trm :
February 24,2016
10:00a.m .
H on.C harlesR .B re ye r
6,17th Fl.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
T A B L EO FC O N T EN T S
Pa ge
3 I.
IN T R O D U C T IO N .......................................................................................................................1
4 II.
FA C T U A L B A C K G R O U N D ......................................................................................................4
5 III.
T H EPR O PER G U ID EL IN EC A L C U L A T IO N S FO R Y EEIN D IC A T E

A SEN T EN C EB ET W EEN 51-63M O N T H S .............................................................................5
A.
T he G overnm entsProposed Sentencing Enhancem entsH ave a D isproportionate

EffectonY eesSentence and M ustB e R eviewed undera C learand C onvincing
Evidence Standard............................................................................................................5
B.
N oM onetary Enhancem entIsW arranted inC ount214..................................................6
10
C.
T he Enhancem entforthe T otal N um berof Firearm s Is B ased onSpeculation,

and N otanA ctual N um ber............................................................................................11
7
8
11
12
1.
U C E4599R elied onthe A ssertionsof Jack soninY eesA bsence...................11
13
2.
T he L aterC onversations B etweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4599Illustrate

Y ees L ack of D esire orIntenttoC arry O utthe A lleged 200W eapon
T raffick ing..........................................................................................................15
3.
Federal C ase L aw Illustratesthe Insufficiency of the Evidence against

Y ee withR egard tothe Enhancem entunderC ount222....................................18
14
15
16
17
18
19
IV .
T H ESEN T EN C IN G C R IT ER IA O F18U .S.C .SEC T IO N 3553A L SO PO IN T

T O W A R D S A SEN T EN C IN G O FB ET W EEN 57-51M O N T H S ...........................................19
A.
N ature and C ircum stancesof the O ffense ......................................................................20
B.
Section3553(a)(1):Y eesH istory and C haracteristics.................................................21
20
1.
Exem plary C haracter..........................................................................................22
2.
Exem plary Service tothe C om m unity...............................................................24
21
22
23
24
25
26
C.
A Sentence of 51-63M onths IsA ll thatIsN eeded toA ccom plishD istributive
Justice and A void U ndue D isparitiesunder18U .S.C . 3553(a)(6).............................26
D.
Section3553(a)(2):G eneral Purposesof the C rim inal Justice System ........................28

1.
JustPunishm ent..................................................................................................29
2.
G eneral D eterrence.............................................................................................29
3.
Specific D eterrence ............................................................................................29
27
28
- iD EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
T A B L EO FC O N T EN T S
(continued)
Pa ge
4.
R ehabilitation.....................................................................................................30
4 V.
A D D IT IO N A L SEN T EN C IN G C O N SID ER A T IO N S .............................................................30
A.
6
7
8
D ownward D epartures...................................................................................................30
1.
C ivic,C haritable,and Public Service ................................................................31
2.
A ge .....................................................................................................................31
3.
C aretak ing ..........................................................................................................31
4.
A berrantB ehavior..............................................................................................33
9
10
V I.
C O N C L U SIO N ..........................................................................................................................33
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
- iiD EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
T A B L EO FA U T H O R IT IES
Pa ge
C ases
Gall
v.
United
States,
4
552U .S.38(U .S.2007)..................................................................................................................5,19
5
United States v. Adelson,
6
441F.Supp.2d 506(S.D .N .Y .2006)...............................................................................21,22,28,29
7 United States v. Anton,
353Fed A ppx.343(11th C ir.2009)....................................................................................................19
8
9 United States v. Booker,
543U .S.220(U .S.2005)..........................................................................................................5,19,21
10
United States v. Campbell,
11
279F.3d 392(6th C ir.2002)................................................................................................................11
12 United States v. Carty,
520F.3d 984(9th C ir.2008)...........................................................................................................5,19
13
United States v. Espinoza-Cano,
14
F.3d 1126,1128(9th C ir.2006............................................................................................................19
15
United States v. Gupta,
904F.Supp.2d 349(S.D .N .Y .2012).....................................................................................21,22,29
16
17 United States v. Hopper,
177F.3d 824,832(9th C ir.1999)..........................................................................................5,6,12,29
18
United States v. Longstreet,
19
603F.3d 273(5thC ir.2010).........................................................................................................18,19
20
United States v. McClatchey,
316F.3d 112229(10th C ir2003).........................................................................................................10
21
22 United States v. Parker,
462F.3d 273(3d.C ir.2006)...............................................................................................................26
23
United States v. Pena,
24
268F.3d 215(3rd C ir.2001).................................................................................................................7
25
United States v. Restrepo,

946F.2d 654(9thC ir.1991)......................................................................................................5,6,12
26
27 United States v. R ussell
504Fed.A ppx.162(3d C ir.Pa.2012).........................................................................................10,11
28
- iiiD EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
(continued)
P a ge
3 United States v. Sapoznik,

161F.3d 1117(7th C ir.1998)................................................................................................................7
4
United States v. Smart,
5
518F.3d 800(10thC ir.2008).............................................................................................................26
6
United States v. W illis

476F.3d 1121,1130(10thC ir.O k la.2007).................................................................................10,11
7
Statutes
18U .S.C .
9
1951....................................................................................................................................................6
8
10 18U .S.C .
1962(d)...............................................................................................................................................1
11
12 18U .S.C .
3553..............................................................................................................................................1,28
13
18U .S.C .
14
3553(a).................................................................................................................................19,20,21
15 18U .S.C .
3553(a)(1).........................................................................................................................................20
16
17 18U .S.C .
3553(a)(2)...................................................................................................................................28,29
18
18U .S.C .
19
3553(a)(2)(A )-(D )............................................................................................................................28
20 18U .S.C .
3553(a)(6)..................................................................................................................................26,28
21
28U .S.C .
22
944(j
)................................................................................................................................................30
23
O ther A uthorities
24 U.S. Sentencing Commn, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,A pril 30,2015,
Proposed U SSG 1B 1.3,atii.............................................................................................................10
25
U.S. Sentencing Commn, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History Computation of the
26
Federal Sentencing Guidelines (M ay 2004).......................................................................................30
27 U.S. Sentencing Commn, Recidivism and the First Offender (M ay 2004)............................................30
28
U .S.Sentencing C om m ission,A m endm entstothe Sentencing G uidelines(M ay 3,2010)...................30
- iv D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
(continued)
P a ge
3 U .S.S.G .
1B 1.3................................................................................................................................................10
4
U .S.S.G .
5
1B 1.3(a)(1)(B )..................................................................................................................................10
6
U .S.S.G .
2C 1.1(b)(2).....................................................................................................................................6,7
7
8 U .S.S.G .
2K 2.1(b)(1)(E).................................................................................................................................12
9
U .S.S.G .
10
5H 1.11..............................................................................................................................................31
11 U .S.S.G .
5H 1.6................................................................................................................................................31
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-vD EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1
2
I.
IN T R O D U C T IO N
D r. L eland Y e e (Y ee )stands before the C ourt having pled guilty to 18 U .S.C . Section
3 1962(d)R IC O C onspiracy,and having accepted responsibility forhis offe nse conductand the harm he
4 caused.H is agreem entwiththe G overnm ent,however,does notinclude specific acceptance of certain
5 enhancem ents under the sentencing guidelines. Specifically,Y e e disagrees with the G overnm e nts
000 should not apply,and
6 positionas follows: (1)for C ount 214,the enhancem ent based on$60,
7 (2)forC ount222,noenhancem entforfirearm s should apply.T hese enhancem ents have,respectfully,
8 beenoverstated inthe G overnm entsproffered sentencing calculations,and are therefore still atissue.
9
A s further set forthbelow,anoffense level of no m ore than24(51-63m onths)is warranted,
10 based on the following: (1) N o M onetary Enhancem ent is warranted in C ount 214,(2) T he
11 Enhancem entforthe T otal N um berof Firearm s is based onspeculation,and notanactual num ber,and
12 (3)the 18 U .S.C . Section3553statutory factors also indicate that a sentence of no m ore than51-63
13 m onths is appropriate,based on Y ees exem plary life,the goals of sentencing,and avoiding a
14 sentencing disparity withsim ilarly situated co-defendants.
15
Inaddition,as C ounsel for Y ee has already pointed out to the ProbationD epartm ent,it is
16 critical toclosely exam ine the investigative procedure followed by the G overnm entinthism atterwhen
17 considering sentencing. Specifically,the G overnm ent brought into this investigationanextrem ely
18 sk illed agent who,despite the lack of inform ationprovided as to his back ground (education,training
19 and experience),displayed whatis clearly a thoroughunderstanding of the Federal law of conspiracy
20 and itsevidentiary intricacies.
21
For exam ple,a review of the body recordings and wire conversations establishes thatthe lead
22 agent,without a doubt,is well sk illed inthe nuances of the law of conspiracy,the law of applicable
23 hearsay evidence,as well as the adm issibility of the statem ents of co-conspirators. T he agent is
24 extrem ely sk illed and k nowledgeable aboutthe generationof evidence thatis bothunable tobe refuted
25 or cross-exam ined because the words are not com ing from the m outhof the defendant but instead,a
26 m anipulated co-defendant.
27
Itis quite clearthatthis very sk illed lead investigator,whounderstood thatonce there was the
28 hint of circum stantial evidence of anagre em ent am ongst individuals,k new he could speak with the
- 1D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 m ost vulnerable individual using le ading statem ents and assum ptions with which that personwould
2 agree regardless of accuracy. Inthis particular circum stance,the vulnerable individual was K eith
3 Jack son (Jack son). Jack son becam e vulnerable in various ways: first,because of the various
4 activities inwhich he becam e entwined for profit with the undercover agent,the m aj
ority of which
5 were faroutside the k nowledge orconductof Y ee;second,because he becam e a paid em ployee of the
6 agent (who was pretending to be anorganized crim e figure);and third,because he m ade financial
7 com m itm ents based on the agents prom ises which could only be m et with the agent being a
8 continuoussource of paym ent.
9
T he agentbrilliantly hook ed and secured Jack sonand had com plete leverage overhim todohis
10 bidding.T he agentplace d Jack sonina positionwhere he would consistently agre e withthe agentand
11 agree withhis leading statem ents re garding others inthe alle ged conspiratorial agreem ent,re gardless
12 of theiraccuracy be cause he had a vested interestinagreeing withthe age nt.Jack sonwas beholde nto
13 the agentbecause he was onhis payroll.Jack sonwas paid as a consultantand re ceived directions as to
14 what was to be done,and it was clear he was convinced by the agent that he should expand his
15 business to the Sacram e nto m ark et. Infact Jack sondid so and incurred debt as he expanded his
16 business,largely onthe prom ise from the agent of m ore m one y and business.Jack sonis notthe first
17 individual who expanded be yond his m eans based onthe prom ises of a potential business source.
18 Jack sonincurred additional liability (debt)inSacram ento through anoffice lease which m ade him
19 further reliant uponthe governm ent agent as a source of funds so that he could m aintainhis new
20 expansion.
21
T his governm ent agent was extrem ely sk illful and m aneuvered Jack soninto a positionof
22 leverage where Jack son would agree wholeheartedly to the agents m andates,caj
oling,and e ven
23 dem andssohe could be k eptonthe payroll.
24
O nce Jack sonhad beenhook ed onthe agents payroll and engaged with the agent inother
25 crim inal activities,e.g.,cocaine traffick ing (all totally independentof Y ee),he stated he would slow all
26 crim inal activities planned withJack sonunless Jack sonshowed him results as toY ees involvem entin
27 anarm s transaction. T he G overnm ents talented undercover agent appe ars well versed inthe art of
28 psychological m anipulationaswell asthe law of conspiracy.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
It is quite evident that the agent was also fam iliar with the A ttorney G eneral guidelines
2 re garding undercoveroperations,toinclude the specific m andate toavoid entrapm ent.Inthis instance

3 the agent controlled the actions of Jack sonby prom ising him rem unerationwhile m aintaining debt
4 leverage.H e led Jack sonwithsuggestions of things thathe ne eded but avoided the dire ct restrictions
5 of entrapm ent. H owever,his paid agent,Jack son,was not bound by any of the rules of the federal
6 governm entusing anaware unde rcovercivilian.
7
Jack son,drivenby financial reasons and inthe world of conspiracy,independent of his co-
8 defendant,could agree tovarious things eventhougha co-defendantm ay nothave assented and yetthe
9 co-defendantcould still be charged withresponsibility forJack sonsstatem ents.
10
M oreover,as a case such as this proce eds to court,the alleged co-conspirator of Jack sonis
11 bound by the statem ents of Jack son,who basically agreed to m any of the statem ents m ade by the
12 undercover agent;these statem ents are adm itted against the alleged co-conspirators eventhoughthey
13 are hearsay. A s inthis case the breadth of a conspiracy canbe expanded by the statem ents m ade
14 betweenJack sonand the agent.T hese statem ents expand the scope of the co-defendants responsibility
15 re gardlessof the intentork nowledge of the non-speak er,and re gardlessof consent.
16
A nexperienced agent such as the one used by the G overnm ent inthis investigationis wise
17 enoughtok now thatthe co-conspirator,whencharged,has,inm ostinstances,noopportunity tode feat

18 orevencross-exam ine the statem ents of his co-de fendantbe cause thatco-defendantis protected by his
19 Fifth and Sixth A m endm ent rights. T hus,anindividual about whom the co-defendant has spok enis
20 virtually ensnared inthatcircum stance.T he C ourt,bound by the law,canprovide norelief from sucha
21 structured use of boththe law of conspiracy and the leverage of a sk illed undercove rgove rnm entagent
22 who could expand the conspiracy throughone individual.T he gove rnm ent agent inthis instance was
23 extrem ely talented,well trained,and very sk illful.
24
A ll thatbeing addressed,Y ee accepts full responsibility forhis actions and his offense conduct
25 as well as the harm he caused.H owever,inconsidering sentencing,D efense counsel requests that the
26 C ourt consider the following factors while reviewing the Presentence R eport: who is the actual
27 speak er,whobasically inform s the speak ers conversations ina statem ent,and whatis the m otivation
28 of the em ployed but unwitting co-defendant who is agreeing withand work ing withthe governm ent
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 agent.
2
3
II.
FA C T U A L B A C K G R O U N D
Y ee em igrated atthe age of three toSanFranciscofrom C hina.H e was bornonN ovem ber20,
4 1948,inC anton,C hina,and is the oldestof five children.H is fathe rwas a vete ranwhose rved inthe
5 U nited States A rm y and as a M erchant Seam an. Y ee was raised inSanFranciscos C hinatown.(See
6 Presentence InvestigationR eport(PSR )at 99.)
7
Y ee received his bachelors degre e from the U niversity of C alifornia at B erk ele y and his
8 m asters de gree from SanFranciscoState U niversity.A fterearning his doctorate inC hild Psychology
9 at the U niversity of H awaii,Y ee work ed invarious m ental health and school settings. Y ee and his
10 wife,M axine,have be enm arried for 43 years and are the parents of four childrenraised inSan
11 Francisco. (Id. at 101.) A s the PSR correctly notes,Y ee has the continued support of his wife,
12 childrenand siblings.(Id. at 103.)
13
Y ee was elected tothe State Senate in2006,afterserving fourye ars inthe State A ssem bly.(Id.
14 at 115.)Y ee is the firstC hinese A m ericantobe elected to the C alifornia State Senate.(Id.)D uring
15 his tim e inthe Senate,Y ee fought for children,m ental health services,work ing fam ilies,seniors,
16 education,open gove rnm ent,consum er protection,civil rights,and the environm ent. (Id.) H e
17 consistently voted against budget cuts to education,social services,and health care. (Id.)B etween
18 2003and 2011,Y ee successfully passed 133pieces of legislation,of which100have beenchaptere d
19 into law.(See D eclarationof Jam es A .L assart (L assart D ec.), Exhibit 1,L eland Y ees L egislative
20 A ccom plishm ents.) Y ee has been nam ed L egislator of the Y ear by 17 different organizations.
21 (PSR , 115.)
22
T hroughouthis professional care er,and inhis personal life,Y ee has beenanindependentvoice
23 and cham pionfor the underdog. H elping others is ingrained inhis D N A ,and,though he k nows he
24 m ust receive j
ust punishm ent for his offense,he hopes to have the opportunity to serve others inthe
25 future,as he repays his debt to society. T oday,Y ee is a 67 year old m an who has accepted
26 responsibility forhis conductand plead guilty be fore this C ourt.Y ee has lead anotherwise exem plary
27 life asa fam ily m an,active voice forthe betterm entof society,and volunte er.
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
III.
T H EPR O PER G U ID EL IN EC A L C U L A T IO N S FO R Y EEIN D IC A T E

A SEN T EN C EB ET W EEN 51-63M O N T H S
2
T he federal sentencing G uidelines are no longe r binding but advisory. (See, United States v.
4 Booker, 543U .S.220,244-246(U .S.2005).)T he overarching statutory charge fora districtcourtis to

5 im pose a sentence sufficient,butnotgreaterthannecessary (United States v. Carty, 520F.3d 984,
th
udge notto
6 991(9 C ir.2008)(enbanc).)Inthatspirit,the Suprem e C ourthasdirected the sentencing j
and instead it should m ak e anindividualized

7 presum e that the G uidelines range is reasonable,
8 assessm ent based onthe facts presented. (See, Gall v. United States, 552 U .S. 38,52 (U .S. 2007)
udge should consider every case as a unique study inthe hum anfailings that
9 (T he sentencing j
10 som etim esm itigate,som etim esm agnify,the crim e and the punishm enttoensue).)
Y ee respectfully subm its that the G uideline calculationset forth inthe PSR Paragraphs 59
11
12 through86should not be followed.T he PSR s calculationis for anoffense level of 27. Y ee inste ad
13 proposes anoffense level of 24,whenthe sentencing enhancem ents noted above are excluded. T he
14 G uideline range forY eesproposed offense level isbetween51-63m onths.
15 A .
16
T he G overnm ents Proposed Sentencing Enhance m entsH ave a D isproportionate Effect

onY eesSentence and M ustB e R eviewed under a C lea r and C onvincing Evidence
Standard.
17
Y ee accepts responsibility for the R IC O conspiracy offense conduct and only disputes the
18 financial and firearm enhancem ents thatthe PSR suggests.T hese enhancem ents are not supported by
ustm ents resultinan
19 sufficientevidence.T he 9thC ircuithas repeatedly held thatwhensentencing adj
20 extrem ely disproportionate effectonthe sentence,the y m ust be provenby cle ar and convincing
ustm ents are viewed cum ulatively,not inisolation. (See, United States v.
21 evidence. M oreover,adj
th
1
22 Hopper, 177F.3d 824,832(9 C ir.1999).)
23
Hopper (citing United States v. Restrepo,946 F. 2d 654,659-60 (9th C ir. 1991)). M oreover,
24 adj
ustm ents are viewed cum ulatively,not inisolation. (See, Hopper,supra,at 832-33 (finding a
com bined offense level of 7 (3 for official victim + 4 for violent conduct) satisfied Restrepo
25 requirem ent warranting a finding by cle ar and convincing evidence).) H ere,the G overnm ents
proffered enhancem ents related to financial contributions and firearm s would result inanextrem ely
26 disproportionate effect onY ees sentence,and should therefore be reviewed under the clear and
convincing standard.T he G overnm ent has not produced sufficient evidence to m eet this standard,let
27 alone the lower preponderance standard. (See, Restrepo,supra,at655(finding thatwhere the higher
clear and convincing evidence standard does not apply,the preponderance of the evidence standard
28 appliesinsentencing).)
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
H ere,the PSR s proffered enhancem ents related tofinancial contributions and firearm s would
2 result inanextrem ely disproportionate effect onY ees sentence,and should therefore be reviewed
3 under the clear and convincing standard. T he G overnm ent has not produced sufficient evidence to
4 m eet even the lower preponderance standard,let alone the clear and convincing standard. (See,
5 Restrepo, supra, at 655 (finding that where the clear and convincing standard does not apply,the
6 preponderance of the evidence standard appliesinsentencing).)
7 B.
N oM onetary Enhance m entIsW arranted inC ount214.
T he PSR suggests thatthe determ inationof the offense level forC ount214,18U .S.C .Section
9 1951: C onspiracy toO btainProperty U nder C olor of O fficial R ight,should involve anenhancem ent
10 for the total value of paym ents received pursuant to U .S.S.G . Section2C 1.1(b)(2). Y ee respectfully
11 subm its that the accurate figure is betwee n$40,
000 and $50,
000,be cause the G ove rnm ent lack s
12 support that the alle ged $60,
000 contribution regarding Y ee s vote on le gislation for work e rs
13 com pensationfor professional athletes was actually ask ed for or m ade. Specifically,Y ee obj
e cts to
14 the assertions inthe PSR that he solicited $60,
000.T here is insufficientevidence thathe solicite d or
15 received these funds or that he acted j
ointly to solicit or receive these funds. (See, Hopper and
16 Restrepo, supra.)
17
T he PSR states thatas partof his guilty plea,Jack sonadm itted thatonJune 22,2013,he had a
18 conversationwithU C E4180during whichJackson said thatY ee would accepta paym entof $60,
000
19 inexchange for Y ees vote onpending le gislation (PSR , 32 (em phasis added).) T he PSR then
20 states that although Y ee did not expressly com m it to receiving the $60,
000 from the undercover
21 agent,itis clearthatY ee was avoiding dire ctconversationwiththe agent,and identified Jack sonas the
22 personthe undercoveragentshould discussdetailswith.(Id. atA ddendum toPSR , 4.)
23
T hese statem ents inthe PSR ack nowledge the insufficiency of the G overnm ents evidence with
24 re gard tothe enhancem ent.T he G overnm entproffers that$60,

000is the num berthatY ee accepted.
25 H owever,the y putforthnoevidence that Y ee accepted $60,
000,orthathe agre ed toaccept$60,
000,
26 eitherfrom the federal agents orfrom K eithJack son.T he PSR ack nowledges thatitwas Jackson, and
27 notY ee,whohad a conversationwithU C E4180,and thatitwas Jackson, and notY ee,whosaid that
28 Y ee would accepta paym entof $60,
000.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
Y e e did not acce pt $60,

000 from the fede ral gove rnm e nt,from the fede ral agents,or from
2 Jack son.G uideline U .S.S.G .2C 1.1(b)(2)only applies to benefits received inreturnfor a paym ent.
3 (See e.g., United States v. Pena, 268F.3d 215,218(3rd C ir.2001)(referring tothe value of the benefit
4 received inreturnforthe paym entininterpreting Section2C 1.1(b)(2));United States v. Sapoznik, 161
5 F.3d 1117,1118(7th C ir.1998)(Posner,C .J.)(T he federal sentencing guidelines base the severity of
6 punishm ent for a crim e that involves tak ing bribes onthe benefit receivedinreturnfor the bribe).)
7 T here was no benefit received by Y ee,the public official,inthis case,and,therefore,the benefit
8 should not apply. T he PSR proffers that the e nhancem ent includes the value of anything to be
9 obtained by a public official,orothers acting with a public official.(A ddendum toPSR ,4(em phasis
10 added).)H oweve r,there is no evidence that the conversationthat Jack sonhad withU C E 4180was a
11 conversationthathe was having inconce rtwithY ee.Jack sonwas,as he has had a history of doing in
12 this case,acting forhis owninterests and independently of Y ee.A dditionally,as noted above,Y ee did
13 notreceive any payment from any party, letalone $60,
000.Forthese reasons,the enhancem entshould
14 notapply.
15
W henthe conversations betweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4180are exam ined intheirentirety,it
16 becom es evident that the U C E is the one pressuring Y ee,and especially Jack son,to give him a
17 num ber.T he eventual figure that Jack sonagrees with inY ees absence is the figure that the U C E
18 him self suggests. T he evidence also shows Jack sonm eeting with the U C E m any tim es inY ees
19 absence,and m ak ing assertions onY ees behalf. W hat the evidence does not show is the PSR s
20 assertionthatitwas clearY ee was avoiding dire ctconversationwiththe agent,and identified Jack son
21 asthe personthe undercoveragentshould discuss detailswith.
22
T he PSR cites tothe M ay 17,2013m e eting betweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4180.D uring that
23 m eeting,Y ee and U C E4180are discussing a continuing relationshipand U C E4180s fundraising,and

24 Y ees cam paignas a whole. D uring the discussion,it is Jack son,and not Y ee,who out of the blue
25 m entions thatU C E4180is friends withthe ownerof anN FL team .(L assartD ec., Exhibit2,FB I 302
26 dated M ay 17,2013.)W henA B 1309is discussed,U C E4180tellsY ee thatthe questionishow m uch
27 does the vote cost?Y ee responds notwitha num ber,butwitha j
ok e abouthaving U C E4180tease
28 hisfriend,and getting anaudience withthe 49ers players.N owhere inthe M ay 17conversationisthere
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 any m entionof purchasing Y ees vote,oranam ountthatthe vote will cost.W henre ad incontext,itis
2 clearY ee isj
ok ing withthe U C E.
3
A fterY ee leaves the M ay 17m eeting,the U C Eexplicitly tells Jack sontoactonhis behalf,not
4 Y ees,stating as long as you and I are onthe sam e page ( )thenyou cank eephim [Y ee] guide d in
5 the correct direction (L assart D e c,Exhibit 3,M ay 17,2013C onversationat 02:25:43-02:26:26.)
6 T he trend of Jack sonm ak ing assertions onY ee s behalf inY ees absence continues inthe series of
7 m eetingsbetweenJack sonand U C E4180.
8
O nM ay 18,a phone conversationtak es place betwee nU C E 4180 and Jack son. D uring the
9 conversation,U C E 4180 presses Jack sonto get Y ee to give him a num ber. Y ee is absent from this
10 conversation.
11
Jack sonthenhas several additional m eetings with U C E 4180,and it is evident during these
12 m eetings thathe is acting onU C E4180s direction.O nJune 13,Jack sonand the U C Ediscuss setting
13 up a m e eting or conference call betweenY ee and U C E 4180s friend.Y ee is absent from these
14 com m unications.N oevidence is presented thatthe com m unications were proposed sothatthe U C Es
15 friendcould buy Y ees vote. (L assart D e c.,Exhibit 4,Excerpts from G overnm ents R esponse to
16 Proposed PSR .)
17
O nJune 15,Jack sonand U C E4180agreethatthe y will discuss paym entonbehalf of the
18 team ownerand Y ee. A gain,Y ee is absentfrom the com m unication.N oevidence is presented thathe
19 k new aboutthis com m unication,orthathe agreed thatJack sonwould discuss paym entonhis behalf.
20 (L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,Excerptsfrom G overnm entsR esponse toProposed PSR .)
21
O nJune 21,Jack sonand the U C E m e et again. D uring this m eeting the U C E represents to
22 Jack sonthatthe source of his donations were illegitim ate.D uring the m e eting,he gives Jack soncash.
23 Jack sonthenasserts thatY ee will play.T here is noevidence presented thatJack soncom m unicated
24 the nature of U C E 4180s donations to Y ee,or that the cashgivento Jack sonever m ade it to Y e es
25 cam paign.(L assartD e c.,Exhibit4,Excerptsfrom G overnm entsR esponse toProposed PSR .)
26
O ne of the only m eetings where Y ee was infactpresentwithU C E4180and Jack sonwas the
27 m eeting onJune 9,2013.D uring this m eeting,Y ee claim s he is m eeting withthe ownerof the 49ers.
28 H e alsostates itwould be gre at if the U C Es friend could be helpful.T here is nodiscussionof the
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 m anner this help will tak e.Y ee m ay be referring to having players attend his fundraisers,having the
2 U C Es friend host a fundraiser,or any m anner of being helpful. T here is no evidence in this
3 conversationof Y ee s supposed intenttoengage ina quid proquoexchange.(L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,
4 Excerptsfrom G overnm entsR esponse toProposed PSR .)
5
O nthe actual day whichthe num berwas discussed,June 22,2013,Y ee was only presentfor
6 a portionof the m eeting and againJack sonm ak es direct asse rtions while Y ee is absent. W henY ee
7 was presentat the m eeting,Jack son,Y ee and the U C Ediscuss A B 1309only inabstractterm s,nota
8 num ber. Infact while Y ee was present the U C E says that he and Jack sonhave discussed cam paign
9 donations.T he U C E carefully does not give Y ee a concrete num ber,nor does Y ee give a num ber to
10 him . Y ee states that Jack sonis going to walk him to his car,and that Jack sonwill return. T he
11 G overnm ents 302states thenthat the U C E understood that to m eanthat Jack sonwould discuss the
12 N FL owners potential donationand thenJack sonwould returnto discuss it with U C E 4180.T his
13 assertiondoes not m e et the cle ar and convincing evidence standard the U C Es understandingof
14 whathe didntsee orhe aris notenoughinthe face of his owndecisionnottodiscuss the issue directly
15 withY ee.(L assartD ec.,Exhibit4,Excerptsfrom G overnm entsR esponse toProposed PSR .)
16
A fterJack sonreturns,U C E4180explicitly states I canhelphim withthis N FL thing,buthe
17 [Y ee] wont commit. (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 5,June 22,2013 C onversationat 01:13:15-01:13:25,

18 em phasis added.)T he undercover agentproposes $60,
000as the num ber,
withJack sonask ing how
19 m uchU C E 4180is willing to com m it to,and U C E 4180gives Jack sonthe figure of $60,
000.T here
20 exists no evidence that Jack sonconsulted withY ee about the am ount nor is there any evidence that
21 Y ee wanted Jack sontosolicitfrom the U C E,noris there any evidence thatY ee wanted tosolicitany
22 specific am ount at all. Jack sondoes not state that Y ee told him to re ceive $60,
000,and there is no
23 evidence of a com m itm entfrom Y ee thathe will receive thatam ountine xchange foranN FL -related
24 bill.
25
U C E 4180s statem ent was correct Yee was not committed,and Y ee did not propose the
26 figure of $60,
000.T here is noevidence thatY ee agreed withthose agents toaccepta figure ina quid
27 pro quo exchange for his vote.A dditionally,U C E 4180did not pay any am ount of m one y,let alone
28 $60,
000,toeitherJack sonorY ee asa resultof thisconversation.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
Y ee obj
ects to the asse rtionthat Jack sons intent m ay be attributed to him as to the $60,
000
2 figure.A ccording toU .S.S.G . 1B 1.3(a)(1)(B ),a base offense level should be determ ined onthe basis
3 of the following:
4
5
6
7
8
Inthe case of a j
ointly undertak encrim inal activity (a crim inal plan,
schem e,endeavor,or enterprise undertak enby the defendant inconcert
with others,whethe r or not charged as a conspiracy),all reasonably
foreseeable acts and om issions of others infurtherance of the j
ointly
undertak encrim inal activity,thatoccurred during the com m issionof the
offense of conviction,inpreparationforthatoffense,orinthe course of
attem pting to avoid detection or responsibility for that offense.
(U .S.S.G . 1B 1.3(a)(1)(B ))
T he U .S.Sentencing C om m issionrecently adopted a narrowed definitionof U .S.S.G . 1B 1.3
9
re garding j
ointly undertak encrim inal activity,
whichwent intoeffe ct N ovem ber 1,2015,toclarify
10
that a defendant canonly be held accountable for the acts of a co-conspirator where: (1)the co11
conspirators acts were withinthe scope of crim inal activity that the defendant agreed to j
ointly
12
undertak e;(2)the co-conspirators acts were infurtherance of that crim inal activity;and (3)the co13
conspirators acts were reasonably foresee able inconne ctionwith that crim inal activity. (See, U.S.
14
Sentencing Commn, Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines,A pril 30,2015,Proposed U SSG
15
1B 1.3,at ii,1-2,available at http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/am endm ent-process/reader16
friendly-am endm ents/20150430_R F_A m endm ents.pdf (accessed July 20,2015); see also, United
17
States v. Russell 504 Fed. A ppx. 162,166-167 (3d C ir. Pa. 2012)([T]he loss attributable to a co18
defendantis notnecessarily coextensive withthe breadthof the conspiracy. T he G uidelines require an
19
individualized inquiry intowhetherthe loss is attributable toa specific co-defendant. A se arching and
20
individualized inquiry into the circum stances surrounding e ach defendant's involvem ent in the
21
conspiracy is critical to ensure that the defendant's sentence accurately re flects his or her role.);
22
United States v. Willis 476F.3d 1121,1130(10thC ir.O k la.2007)(finding thatto calculate loss,the
23
court m ust m ak e particularized findings about scope of the conspiratorial agreem ent because the
24
scope of the agre em ent and re asonable forese eability are independent and ne cessary elem ents of
25
relevant conduct.);United States v. McClatchey, 316 F.3d 1122,1129 (10th C ir 2003)(internal
26
quotationm ark s om itted)([T ]he factthatthe de fendantis aware of the scope of the overall operation
27
is notenoughto[establishthe scope of the de fendantsagreem ent]and therefore,is notenoughtohold
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 him accountable forthe activities of the whole operation.(citing United States v. Campbell,279F.3d
2 392,400(6th C ir.2002).)
Y ee and Jack sonhad a cooperative relationship.2 H owever,this does not m eanthat every
4 transactioninwhichJack sonportrayed anintenttocom plete should be considered j

ointly undertak en
5 conductby Y ee,pursuanttoU .S.S.G . 1B 1.3. (See, Willis,supra at1130.)
6
A s the PSR correctly ack nowledges,[Y ee] was not present or involved inevery discussion
7 withcodefendantJack sonand the undercover agents.H e was alsonotpresentevery tim e m one y was
8 exchanged,noris itcertainthe collected m onies were actually provided toM r.Y ee orthe cam paign.
9 (PSR , 140.)T he PSR correctly notes that Y ee did not m anage Jack son. (Id., 52.)(It m ust be
10 reiterated that Jack sonwas engaged inanentirely separate conspiracy with the sam e undercover
11 agents.)Jack sons intent and conduct,separately from Y ees,m ust be scrutinized withregard to the
12 acceptance of the num berof $60,
000from U C E4180.(See, United States v. Russell, 504Fed.A ppx.
13 162,166-167 (3rd C ir. Pa,2012)(A searching and individualized inquiry into the circum stances
14 surrounding each defendants involvem ent inthe conspiracy is critical to ensure that the defendants
15 sentence accurately refle cts his orherrole)(em phasis added).)W henJack sons intentand conductin
16 the solicitationof the $60,
000 is individually exam ined,it is cle ar that it was Jack sonwho was the
17 prim ary and sole actorinthe solicitation.
18
T he G ove rnm ent has not m et the burdenof cle ar and convincing evidence to sustainthe six
19 level enhancem ent inC ount 214;ask ing the C ourt to rely uponthe U C Es understandingof an
20 exchange thatthe U C Eneither saw nor heard,and the assertions of K eithJack son,whowas a biased
21 and m otivated tool of U C Em ak ing assertionsonY eesbehalf isnotwarranted.
22 C .
23
T he Enhancem entfor the T otal N um ber ofFirearm sIsB ased onSpeculation,and N ota n
A ctual N um ber.
1.
24
25
U C E4599R elied onthe A ssertionsofJack soninY eesA bsence.
Y ee has accepted responsibility fortak ing steps toarrange deal m ak ing conversations re garding
26 firearm s. H e ack nowledges his guilt unde r this charge.H owever,the G overnm ent has suggested that
27
N otably,Jack sonwas one of m any fundraisers forY ees cam paign,and he was neverpaid by Y ee or
28 Y ees cam paignforhisvolunteerfundraising efforts.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 the determ inationof the offense level for C ount 222 should involve anenhancem ent for the total
2 num ber of firearm s pursuant to U .S.S.G . Section2K 2.1(b)(1)(E).3 T here is insufficient evidence to
3 support this enhancem e nt under the clear and convincing standard,or any other standard. (See,
4 Hopper, supra, at832-33,see also, Restrepo, supra, at655.)
5
T he G overnm entclaim s thatY ee traffick ed 200firearm s.N o evidence supports a finding that
6 Y ee possessed,received,or transported any firearm s,let alone 200,as required by U .S.S.G .Section
7 2K 2.1(b)(1)(E).Infactthere is noevidence thatY ee evenm entioned 200firearm s. T he only firearm s8 related docum ent inY ees possessionwas a list of firearm s,the U C Es unsolicited wishlist givento
9 Y ee and found inY ees hom e at the tim e of its searchwe ek s later. (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 6,L ist of
10 W eapons.)T his list was not authored by Y ee it was authored by the U C E,and it does not list200
11 firearm s. It contains one page and approxim ately 10 styles of firearm s,listing no inform ationabout
12 quantity. T he list and its contents has never beenprovento have left Y ees house,never overheard
13 discussed inany wiretap,m uchlesscom m unicated ortransfe rred toothers tofulfill the order.
14
T he PSR cites to conversations betweenJack son,U C E 4599,and Y ee. (See PSR , 41-49.)
15 W henthese conversations are exam ined indetail,the y are found tobe general and lack ing indetail as
16 to the developm ent or im plem entationof any actual plan,agreem ent,or future actions.Infact,these
17 firearm s conversations are U C E-led,m uch like the donationconversations. A gain,as is the pattern,
18 m any of the conve rsations tak e place inY ees absence,withJack sonm ak ing claim s onY e es be half.
19 Sim ply put,Y e e was neitherthe instigatorof the firearm s discussion,nordid he everprom ise delive ry
20 of any specific num berof firearm s.Infactas the case is exam ined inwhole the actual sale and transfer
21 of firearm sdid tak e place butnotwithoraround Y ee,and notinhisconspiracy.
22
T he firstconversationcited inthe PSR re garding firearm s is betwe enJack sonand U C E4599,
23 and tak es place onA ugust 2,2013. (See PSR , 42.)T he A ugust 2,2013 302 is about a m ee ting
24 betweenU C E 4599,K eith Jack son,and B randonJack son. (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 7,FB I 302 dated
25 A ugust 2,2013.) T he m eeting prim arily involves B randonJack sonand the U C E discussing the
26 purchase of illegal weapons and cocaine. D uring the m eeting,K eith Jack sontells U C E 4599 that
27
28
T he G overnm entseek sa 10level enhancem entbased onitsproffered 200firearm sfigure.

C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 L eland Y ee is associated with anunidentified R ussianindividual who was aninternational arm s

2 dealer.H e thenrepresents tothe U C Ethatthe R ussianhad a containerfull of large scale weapons.
3 N odetailsare givenand Y ee isnotpresent.
4
T he PSR thenrefers to m eetings betwe enthe U C E and K eithJack soninD ecem ber of 2013.
5 (See PSR , 44.)T his incom plete chronology fails toreference several conversations betweenJack son
6 and the U C Ethatillustrate the patternof the U C Eleading the arm s traffick ing discussionand Jack son
7 m ak ing claim sonY ees behalf,all the while inhisabsence.
8
W hatis m issing inthe chronology is the A ugust5,2013m eeting betweenU C E4599and K eith
9 and B randonJack son,where the U C E arrange s to purchase weapons from B randonJack son. It is
10 during this m eeting thatK eithJack sontells the U C Ethathe has spok entoY ee aboutthe unidentified
11 R ussianand is setting upa m eeting withhim .O nA ugust8,2013,whenthe U C Eis againpurchasing
12 firearm s from B randon Jack son,K eith Jack son tells the U C E that he and Y ee are m eeting the
13 unidentified R ussianarm sdealer.
14
O nA ugust11,2013withY ee still absent,Jack sontells the U C Ethathe is attem pting tosetup
15 a m eeting,butY ee wanted tobe cautious.T his representationism ade during Jack sons involvem entin
16 a m one y laundering conspiracy with the U C E and other defendants. O nSeptem ber 13,2013 and
17 O ctober 17,2013,Jack soncontinues torepresent that Y ee k nows the R ussian,thatthe R ussianis the
18 real deal. O n Septem ber13,while Jack son and the U C E are discussing m arij
uana traffick ing,
19 Jack sonstill claim s tobe setting up a m e eting.(L assartD ec,Exhibit8,FB I 302dated Septem ber13,
20 2013.)O n O ctober 17,Jack sonand the U C E are discussing cocaine traffick ing,and once again
21 Jack sonm ak es assertions onbehalf of the R ussiangunde aler. (L assartD ec,Exhibit9,FB I 302dated
22 O ctober17,2013.)
23
Ina D e cem be r3m eeting refe renced inthe PSR ,the focus of the U C Eand Jack sonis cocaine
24 traffick ing and m urder for hire.(PSR , 44.)N either of these activities have anything todowithY ee
25 nor are the y charged inY ees conspiracy.D uring the m eeting,Jack sonclaim s he is m ak ing progress
26 toward a m eeting withthe R ussian.
27
T his patterncontinues to the next m eetings re ferenced inthe PSR . (PSR , 45.)A s the PSR
28 correctly notes,the U C E 4599was paying Jack son.(A t anothe r m eeting betweenU C E 4599,K eith
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 Jack sonand B randonJack sononD ecem ber13,2013 U C E4599provided K eithJack sonwith$1000

2 as incentive for setting up a m eeting with the arm s dealer.(Id.;L assart D ec,Exhibit 10,FB I 302
3 dated D ecem ber13,2013.)
4
D uring a D ecem ber17,2013m eeting,Jack sonaccepted a paym entfrom U C E4599,allegedly
5 for Y ee,and said that he would m ak e sure the m eeting with the R ussianoccurred. (L assart D ec,
6 Exhibit 11,FB I 302dated D ecem ber 17,2013.)A s the PSR correctly points out,as a m e eting with
7 the arm s dealer kept being postponed by Jackson, U C E-4599told Jack sonand B randonJack sonthat
8 the cocaine deal would be delayed until the meeting with the arms dealer materialized.(PSR , 45
9 (em phasis added).) T his statem entillustrates the am ountof leverage thatthe U C Ewas using overthe
10 m oney-strapped Jack son,and the extent to which he controlled Jack sons illicit activities to include
11 withholding m onetary supportof Jack sonuntil he delivered Y ee.
12
O nD ecem ber 19,2013,the PSR states that agents surveilled Y ee and Jack sonm eeting with
13 L eonR ader,whois believed tobe the R ussianarm s dealerwhoJack sonwas referring topreviously.
14 (Id.)T he PSR does not include the relevant details of this m eeting: that the G overnm ent surveilled
15 Y ee and K eith Jack sonwhenthe y went to A rt inStone M onum ents,
R adars long established
16 businessinC olm a,C alifornia.
17
Infact,M r.R aderis a longtim e acquaintance of Y ee,and he is the founderand designerof A rt
18 inStone M onum ents,whichspe cializes ingranite and m arble m em orials.T he G overnm enthas had
19 all of the inform ationthey would need toidentify M r.R aderas som eone involved ininternational arm s
20 traffick ing.T othis day,there is noindicationorany disclosed discove ry of any inform ationattaching
21 M r.R adertointernational arm straffick ing orany businessotherthana stone carver.
22
T he PSR is inaccurate in its portrayal that initially,K eith Jack son played the role of
23 interm ediary,as Y ee was the connectiontothe firearm s dealer,and the num erous discussions between
24 Jack son,Y ee and U C E4599refle ctthatthe y intended todoa sale of large quantitiesof we apons. (Id.
25 at 43.)A s the conversations are exam ined indetail it establishes that there is no evidence of any
26 conversationbetweenJack son,Y ee and the U C E. T here is only Jack sons repe ated assertions to the
27 U C E (the m anwho is paying him to set up Y ee )that he will accom plish the set up. M oreove r,the
28 subtextis,if he doesnot,Jack sonssource of m one y will evaporate.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
2.
T he L ater C onversationsB etweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4599Illustra te Y e es

L ack ofD esire or IntenttoC arry O utthe A lleged 200W eaponT raffick ing.
2
3
T he G overnm ent has never produced any evide nce indiscovery that dem onstrates a viable
4 possibility thatY ee had the intentionorthe m eans eithertocom plete a 200firearm transferorthathe
5 took steps to possess the arm s. EvenwhenY ee eventually m eets with Jack sonand U C E 4599,his
6 conversations,when exam ined,illustrate his lack of k nowledge of fire arm s. D uring these
7 conversations,the patternof the U C Es assertiveness inthe m eetings,and his pressure onothers
8 continues.T he num ber200(orany greaternum ber)is neversaid inany conversationthatY ee has with
9 the U C E and Jack son,nor is it writteninany docum ent. T he only docum ent is the U C Es weapons
10 wishlist.
11
Y ee eventually m e ets with Jack sonand U C E 4599 onJanuary 22,2014. (See PSR , 46.)
12 D uring this m eeting,there is nom entionof the num berof weapons thatU C E4599wants topurchase;
13 the num ber 200 is neve r m entioned. T he U C E ask s Y ee for a face-to-face withR ader,stating ( )
14 were talk ing m illions of dollars here.( )its a very com plexdeal ( )hes [Y ee] going to ne ed to
15 talk withm e at som e point ( )because youre not gonna be able to answer the questions.(L assart
16 D ec.,Exhibit12,January 22,2014C onversationat0:49:43-0:50:30.)T he U C Ecom m ents toY ee that
17 he wants autom atic weapons.Y e e tells him that T hat k ind of detail ( )canbe work ed out with
18 L eon[R ader]. (Id., Exhibit 13,January 22,2014 C onversationat 1:02:42-1:03:27.)Y ee does not
19 pretend to have any idea of the num ber of weapons the U C E intends to acquire or how m uchthose
20 weapons cost.Instead,the conversationillustrates Y ee s lack of detailed understanding and a desire to
21 leave the detailstothe U C Eand the arm sde aler.
22
T wodays later,U C E4599m eets withK eithJack son.T he U C Epressures Jack sontoorganize a
23 m eeting with R ader,stating I k now youre gonna m ak e this happen. B ecause I need it. I need this
24 happen within the next ( ) week and half,two week s. (Id., Exhibit 14,January 24,2014
25 C onversationat01:12:05-01:12:23.)T he U C Estates thathe has look ed upR ader: I look ed him upustputL eonC olm a?(Id., Exhibit15,January 24,2014C onversationat
26 he owns a place in I j
27 00:14:55-00:15:05.)T he U C Eadditionally claim s he is aware of the dentist,D r.W ilsonL im (L im ).
28 (Id., Exhibit16,January 24,2014C onversationat00:18:05-00:18:19.)
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
D espite the U C Es awareness of R aderand L im s back grounds,the U C Econtinues torespond
2 toJack sonsassertionina January 24conversationthatbothL im and R aderare the re al deal.T he U C E

3 continues to pursue the transactionwhich now includes a R ussianartisanand anelderly Filipino
4 dentist.
5
A series of m eetings betweenY ee,the U C E and Jack sonall follow the sam e tenor;the U C E
6 steering the discussionand Y ee avoiding concrete dates or com m itm ents. D uring a February 25
7 m eeting and be fore Y ee arrives,the U C E pressures Jack sonfor a face -to-face with R ader. H e tells
8 Jack son,Ive putm y fuck ing nam e and m y reputationoutthere and now Im going tolook like a
9 fuck ing j
erk ?,to which Jack sonresponds Ive put a lot of work into this I told him too,I said,
10 M an,I need this too.(Id., Exhibit 17,February 25,2014 C onversationat 00:17:40-00:18:20.)It is
11 apparentthe y are j
oined inpurpose.
12
W henY ee arrives at the m eeting,there is no discussionof the actual num ber of weapons the
13 U C Ewants.T he U C Eadvises Y ee thathe wants a sam ple orderof atleasttwom illiondollars,and a

14 containerfull of A K s.T here is nostatem entof how m any guns 2m illiondollars will purchase orhow
15 m any A K s canfitintoa container,noris there any agreem ent.InfactY ee rej
ectsthe proposal tom ove
16 forward,and tells the U C E he will do sm all de alsto beginwith,and he postpones any im m ediate
17 actionand tells him that If anything is going to happen,itwill probably nothappenuntil the end of
18 this yearornextyear. (Id., Exhibit18,February 25,2014C onversationat00:52:20-00:52:51.)
19
O nM arch5,Jack soninform s the U C EthatR aderwill nolongerbe the source of the firearm s.
20 (See PSR , 48.)Instead,Jack sontells the U C E the source is the elderly Filipino dentist. Jack son
21 claim s the drastic swap is the result of unrest inthe U k raine. T he U C E does not react othe r thanto
22 pressure Jack sonand Y ee fora face-to-face m e eting withthe elderly dentist.(L assartD ec., Exhibit19,
23 M arch5,2014C onversationat00:17:26-00:18:46.)
24
Y ee discusses that D r. L im has connections to the Southernpart of the Philippines,and the
25 M uslim extrem ists that live there. (Id., Exhibit 20,M arch 5,2014 C onversation at 00:48:3026 00:50:20.)Y ee provides nodetails as tothe M uslim sidentity,the weapons the y have,orhow those
27 weapons would be traffick ed. T he U C E againe xpresses his desire to purchase two m illiondollars
28 worthof weapons.A s the PSR correctly notes,Y ee thenm entioned that 100 rifles m ay be available
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 (see PSR at 48);atno point isthe number 200 mentioned. A dditionally,Y ees am ateurunde rstanding
2 of weapons is displayed when,after hearing the am ount of two m illiondollars,he m entions 100,
3 m eaning 100rifles fortwom illiondollars and thencom m ents,thats probably toom uch.T he U C E
4 evenasserts his willingness to scale back the first deal. (L assart D ec., Exhibit 21,M arch 5,2014
5 C onversation at 01:06:15-01:06:50.)T his entire exchange illustrates Y ees lack of k nowledge of
6 weapons and theirvalue as well as the agents agreem enttoany sale including a sm all deal. A tany
7 rate there wasneitherthe m entionnorforese eability of 200weapons.
8
Inthe M arch 11,2014 m eeting,the PSR states that Jackson admitted that he and Y ee had
9 arranged the m eeting with the intentionthat U C E 4599 would be able to utilize introductionand
10 arrangem ents from Jack son,Y ee and L im to purchase quantities of weapons from other individuals
11 inthe Philippines Jackson agreed thatthe U C Eadvised him ,Y ee and L im that U C E4599wanted
12 autom atic weapons (See PSR , 41(em phasisadded).)
13
D uring the M arch11m e eting betweenJack son,Y ee,L im and U C E4599,the U C Eagainsteers
14 the conversation. Y ee e xpresses his repeated reluctance to m ove forward with any deal,stating we
15 cannotdoanything until afterthe election.H e alsorepeats thata sm all de al is best,telling the U C Eto
16 ordera little,dontordera lot. (L assartD ec., Exhibit22,M arch11,2014C onversationat1:14:4517 1:16:45.)
18
W henthe U C Eask s aboutnextsteps,Y ee goes as faras totell him thatD r.L im has totravel
19 with him ,and that he wont be ready to go until N ovem ber,over sixm onths from the tim e of the
20 m eeting.T he U C Ethengets angry withY ee,stating Y oure always pulling the bull shitm an. (Id.,
21 Exhibit 23,M arch11,2014C onversationat 1:24:00-1:25:18.)T he U C E continues to show his anger
22 towards Y ees delay: Sothe nextsteps are,( )adhering to your alm ighty tim efram e,I understand
23 that,but what Id at least like to do is ( )to give you a list. (Id., Exhibit 24,M arch 11,2014
24 C onversationat1:34:00-1:34:30.)
25
A fterY ee leaves the m eeting,the U C Econtinues toshow his anger,ask ing Jack sonwhatthe
26 fuck is the diffe rencewithregard to the tim eline. (Id., Exhibit 25,M arch11,2014 C onversationat
27 1:45:08-1:45:43.)H e also delivers a m onologue regarding his belief that Y ee is incontrol and has
28 m ultiple ports inthe Philippines.(Id., Exhibit 26,M arch11,2014C onversationat 1:47:08-1:47:57.)
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 T hese verbal conclusions by the U C E are not discussed inY ee or D r. L im s presence. N or are the
2 quantity of weapons the U C E hopes to acquire. Infact,the G ove rnm ents agents have interviewed
3 A nna M aria L eon,whoconfirm ed Y ee and L im s pasttravel tothe Philippines was tocreate a clinic to
4 provide dialysis,not firearm s purchase. (Id., Exhibit 27,G overnm ent Interview of A nna M aria L e on
5 302dated A ugust8,2014.)
6
Evenduring the final m eeting onM arch14,2014,whenthe U C Eprovides Y ee the listof types
7 of weapons,there isnom entionof the num berof weaponsthatthe U C Ewantsfrom D r.L im .

8
W henthese conversations are listened to together,they support the conclusionthat Y ee was
9 following U C E 4599s urgings and m inim ized and delayed every dem and. Y e e portraye d no
10 k nowledge of the fire arm s traffick ing trade and was unaware of their value or worth. T he U C E
11 provided a specific quantity of firearm s and the listhe provided does notlead toany concrete num ber.
12 Y ee did not agree to or even utter that he would or could provide 200 firearm s and outside of
13 speculation,the G overnm enthasnoconcrete proof of any traffick ing of 200firearm s.
14
15
16
3.
Federal C ase L aw Illustratesthe Insufficiency ofthe Evidence againstY ee with

R egard tothe Enhance m entunder C ount222.
T he Federal C ourts have interpreted the sufficiency of evidence required to support such an
17 enhancem ent.InUnited States v. Longstreet, 603F.3d 273(5thC ir.2010),the FifthC ircuitfound that
18 such a ten level increase was inappropriate. In Longstreet, the D efendants husband adm itted to
19 G overnm ent agents that he traffick ed over 300 guns from the tim e period of 1998-2005. T he
20 D efendantdid notj
oinhis conspiracy until 2001,and personally purchased 45firearm s infurtherance
21 of it.(Id. at278.)T he D istrictC ourtdeem ed the connectionbetweenthe D efendantand he rhusband,
22 whom she begandating in1999,tobe sufficienttom ak e heraccountable forhis conduct.(Id.)T he
23 Fifth C ircuit disagreed,finding that there was no evidence that the D efendant conspired with her
24 husband priorto2001de spite this connection.T he C ourtstated thatabsent particularized findings
25 that [the D efendant] was actually involved in[her husbands] activities prior to 2001 or that the
26 [defendant] was otherwise responsible for m ore than200 firearm s the present record provides no
27 justifiable basis for the district courts ten level increase. (Id. at279(em phasisadded).)
28
United States v. Anton illustrates the type of evidence sufficienttouphold suchanincrease for
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 the possessionof 200orm ore firearm s.(United States v. Anton, 353Fed A ppx.343(11th C ir.2009).)
2 InAnton, the D efendantactually possessed 347firearm s,and told this toanA T FA gent.(Id. at 344.)
3 T he A T F additionally found 23,
000 rounds of am m unitionat the D efendants residence,as well as
4 ledgers thatcontained detailed descriptions of several hundred firearm s inthe D efendants possession.
5 (Id. at 345.)T he Eleventh C ircuit found that the ledge rs and am ount of am m unitionfound at the
6 D efendants hom e corroborated his statem ent that he possessed 347 firearm s,and thus the
7 enhancem entcould be upheld.(Id.)
8
Y ees conduct inthis case is rem ark ably less thanthat of the de fendants inboth Anton and
9 Longstreet. U nlike the D efendants inLongstreet and Anton, Y ee never possessed any firearm s inthe
10 entire case,nor inthe search of his prem ises,let alone traffick ed inwe apons. Y ee ce rtainly had no
11 detailed ledgers of hundreds of fire arm s or thousands of rounds of am m unitioninhis possession,and
12 aside from his abstract conversations with the U C E and Jack son,Y ee never engaged inany sort of
13 overt act to further the alleged conspiracy.Y ee never discussed a concrete num ber of weapons to be
14 purchased or traffick ed,and dem onstrated num erous tim es the lack of any urgency to carry through
15 any sort of m aj
or fire arm s deal. For the foregoing reasons,the enhancem ent proffered by the
16 G overnm entand PSR isinsufficiently supported.
17
18
19
IV .
T H ESEN T EN C IN G C R IT ER IA O F18U .S.C .SEC T IO N 3553A L SO P O IN T

T O W A R D S A SEN T EN C IN G O FB ET W EEN 57-51M O N T H S
T he G uidelines calculationis only a starting pointto the sentencing calculation. (See, e.g.
20 United States v. Espinoza-Cano, F.3d 1126,1128(9th C ir.2006).)Inthe wak e of Booker, a trial court
21 m ay not presum e that the G uidelines range is reasonable.(Gall v. United States, 552 U .S. 38,50
22 (U .S. 2007).)It m ust m ak e anindividualized assessm ent of the appropriate sentence based onthe
23 particular facts of the case and the defendants circum stances,inlight of the factors set forth in18
24 U .S.C .Section3553(a).(United States v. Carty, 520F.3d 984,991(9th C ir.2008)(enbanc).)T hough
25 C ourts oftenbe ginwitha G uideline calculation,the calculationm ay notbe givenm ore orless we ight
26 thanany othersentencing factorsof 18U .S.C .Section3553(a).(Id.)
27
T he overarching principle inthe analysis is thatthe C ourtshall im pose a sentence sufficient,
28 butnotgreaterthannecessary,tocom ply withthe purposes [of sentencing].(Id.; see also 18U .S.C .
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 Section3553(a).)T his is especially im portant where,as he re,the re com m ended G uideline range is
2 driveninlarge partby the unprovenenhancem entfigures.
3
18U .S.C .Section3553(a)requires thatthe four sentencing factors,discussed below,be given
4 equal weight as the guidelines. T he PSR also correctly notes that a downward variance m ay be
5 considered due tothe history and characteristicsof the D efendant. (See PSR , 141.)
6 A.
N ature and C ircum stancesofthe O ffense
A s the PSR states,Pursuant to 18 U .S.C . 3553(a)(1),the nature and circum stances of the
8 offense,a downward variance m ay be warranted inthiscase. (PSR , 140.)

9
T he PSR ack nowledges that Y ee was not present or involved inall of Jack sons discussions
10 withundercoveragents,orpresenteachtim e Jack sonreceived m one y from those agents.(Id.)T he PSR

11 alsoack nowledges thatitis notcertainthatthe m one y colle cted by Jack sonwas actually receive d by
12 Y ee orhiscam paign.(Id.)
13
Jack sons contactwiththe undercoveragents was incredibly frequent,typically m ultiple tim es
14 perday.(L assartD ec.,e.g.,Exhibit28,five recordings of conversations thattook place on9/23/2011,

15 and Exhibit 29,ten recordings of conversations that took place on 2/27/2012.) D uring his
16 conversations withthe undercoveragents,Jack sonfrequently asserted thatY ee would acceptoffers the
17 agentsputforth,withoutconsulting Y ee.(PSR , 140;see also,L assartD e c.,Exhibit30,June 22,2013
18 C onversationat1:10:50-1:16:50.)T here is noevidence thatY ee had k nowledge of the term s of these
19 offers,or that Jack sonwas entering into agree m ents allegedly onhis direction. A lthough Y e e and
20 Jack sonwere associates,there is no evidence that Y ee retained Jack sonor supplied him with the
21 authority to act as his agent or m ak e representations onhis behalf for all purposes. O ften,Jack son
22 accepted m one y from the agents whichthe agents represented was togotoY ee and his cam paign.T his
23 paym ent system whene xam ined increases the likelihood that not all the m one y collected by Jack son
24 was actually re ceived by Y ee orhis cam paign.Y ee was notpresentduring these interactions,and there
25 is no evidence that all of the m oney given to Jack son for Y ees cam paign ever left Jack sons
26 possession.
27
A dditionally,Jack sonwas paid by the undercover agents to advance their agendas. T hese
28 agendas included getting Y ee to arrange m eetings,m ak e phone calls,or tak e other actions onthe
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 agents behalf suchas to bribe Y ee to do their bidding.Jack sonentered into form al agreem ents with
2 several of the unde rcover agents onbehalf of his business,Jack sonC onsultancy. T hese agents paid
3 Jack sonregularly from 2011until charges were brought against him .(L assart D ec.,e.g.,Exhibit 31,
4 B ates U S 607256;Exhibit32,B ates U S 601194;Exhibit33,B ates U S 601249.)T his paym entsystem
5 encouraged Jack sontoplease the agents withhis success and provide inform ationthatY ee was willing
6 toengage inactivitiesand m ak e agreem ents.
7
T he PSR is correct in ack nowledging that Y ees lim ited involvem ent and awareness of
8 Jack sonsinteractionswiththe undercove ragentswarrantsa downward variance.

9 B.
10
Section3553(a)(1): Y eesH istory and C haracteristics

Booker, supra, at 259-260 requires considerationof T he history and characteristics of the
11 defendant.(See 18U .S.C . 3553(a).)W here the facts of the defendants exem plary characteristics do
12 not rationally square with a recom m ended G uide line sentence,a court m ay im pose a non-G uideline
13 sentence ora significantdeparture.(See,United States v. Gupta,904F.Supp.2d 349,353(S.D .N .Y .
14 2012);see also, United States v. Adelson, 441F.Supp.2d 506(S.D .N .Y .2006).)
15
InGupta, the defendantwas convicted of one countof conspiracy and thre e counts of securities
16 fraud. (See, Gupta, at 350.)Probationrecom m e nded a 30 point sentence,but the C ourt im posed a
17 below-G uideline sentence of twoyears inprison,and one yearof supervised release,because the facts
18 of the case,and the defendants exem plary history of good work s,did not rationally square withthe
19 G uideline sentence.(Id. at354-55.)Sim ilarly,inUnited States v. Adelson, the defendant,a C O O ,was
20 convicted of conspiracy,securities fraud,and three counts of false filing,but the C ourt rej
e cted the
21 proposed G uideline sentence. (Adelson, supra,at 507.)T he C ourt found that A delsonj
oined a pre22 existing conspiracy,and thathe led anexem plary lifeand thusdiscarded the G overnm entsproffered
23 sentence,whichwould have resulted inthe defendantslife im prisonm ent,infavorof a three and a half
24 yearsentence and significantrestitution.(Id. at513-514.)
25
T he C ourt in Adelson found that the relevant history and characteristics included the
26 defendants long history of good deeds for others,his integrity and generosity,and his overall deep
27 hum anity.(Id.)
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1.
Exem plary C hara cter
A s his characte r letters subm itted herewith dem onstrate,the offense conduct inthis case is
3 aberrational oratypical inthe contextof Y ees life. L ike the defendants inGupta and Adelson,Y ees
4 exem plary character and 40-year career of se rving others warrants a below-G uideline sentence of not
5 m ore than51-63 m onths,or a m ore significant departure. Y ee respectfully requests that the single
udged inthe contextof the following exam plesof hiswork and character.
6 countoffense be j
7
Y ee has devoted his entire professional life,be ginning as early as his college studies,to the
8 service of others. H e be ganhis career work ing withm ental healthpatients and childrenas a clinical
9 and school psychologist.
D uring this tim e,he held leadership positions with 45 volunteer
10 organizations,largely inthe areas of public educationand com m unity m ental health.A s a letter from
11 M rs.Y ee attests,Y ee was reluctanttorunforthe B oard of EducationinSanFrancisco,butdid sodue
12 tothe factthathe cared very m uchforthe youthof the C ity.(See L assartD ec.,Exhibit34,p.173-174.)
13 T his level of caring is evidenced throughout Y e es political career. Y e e has a consistent record of
14 voting for bills providing m ental he alth funding,work ing to advance civil rights,and increasing
15 transparency ineducation. D uring his tim e as a State Senator,Y ee passed bills funding dom estic
16 violence shelters,ending sentencing of life without the possibility of parole for youthoffenders,and
17 protecting childrenfrom hum antraffick ing.
18
Y ees passionfor helping others has translated beyond his com m unity as well. A letter from
ectY ee was em bark ing uponwithD r.W ilsonL im .(See L assartD ec.,
19 R ay M ascarinas discusse s a proj
20 Exhibit34,p.108.)D r.L im ,whoatthe tim e had k idney problem s,was undergoing dialysis ona daily
21 basis.(Id.)H e indicated toY ee thatwhile inA m erica dialysis is fairly routine,those inhis hom etown
22 inthe Philippines have totravel m any m iles toM anila toreceive it,and m ostof the tim e are unable to
23 doso.(Id.)Y ee thenoffered tohelpD r.L im toestablisha non-profitdialysis clinic inhis hom etown,
24 and ask ed D a V ita todonate som e of theirold dialysis m achines tothe clinic. (Id.)A lthoughD r.L im
25 haspassed away,Y ee is determ ined tocontinue tohelpthese dialysispatientsinthe Philippines.
26
Y ee has lived his life guided by the principles of equality,hum ility,com passion,and
usta few exam plesfrom the characterletterssubm itted herewithdem onstrate:

27 independence. A sj
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
SherlynC hew C hew has k nownY ee for m ore than55 years,

attended m iddle school and college with him ,and was a
colleague inO U SD . She reports that Y ee helped hundreds of
students withspecial needs. O na personal note,Y ee counseled
C hew and herson,withoutcharge,whenC hews husband passed
away.
Paul D eM eester D eM eester is a friend and anattorney. H e

relays the following story,InD ecem berof 2005,I turned tohim
with a suggestionfor le gislationafter K atina B ritt,anindigent
client of m ine,had been wronged in the San M ateo C ounty
Superior C ourt. A state j
udge had inte rpreted a statute that
allowed j
ailing of a dom estic violence victim /witness who
refused totestify if there had be enanearliernon-j
ailing sanction
im posed I sought L elands help inclarifying the legislation.
H e says that Y ee wondered why dom estic violence victim s
could notbe putinthe sam e positionas sexassaultvictim s when
itcam e tosuchvictim s notwanting totestify.Eventually,Y ees
bill,Senate B ill 1356,passed and was signed into law by
G overnor A rnold Schwarz enegger in 2008. T he bill typified
what L eland Y e es public service was all about. H e helped a
powerlesswom anbecause he feltitwasthe rightthing todo.
R ay M ascarinas M ascarinas is a friend.H e describes how Y ee

helped a m utual friend,D r. W ilsonL im ,who was undergoing
dialysis ona regularbasis,establisha non-profitdialysis clinic in
his hom etown and obtain second hand dialysis m achines.
Senator L eland was som oved by the proj
e ctthathe offered his
help to D r. L im in finding a donor for those second hand
m achines. Senator L e land ask ed D a V ita to donate som e of
their old m achines and get them refurbished. D r. L im was so
happy that he told the Senator that he will fly to his hom e town
and prepare the clinic toreceive the m achinesas soonaspossible.
I went withD r.L im to accom pany him as soonas his physician
gave him the clearance to travel to the Philippines. Senator
L eland,as a good friend,showed his support to D r. L im and
followed us withinthe week paying for his trip. D r. L im gave
Senator L eland a tour of the province (C ebu and M indanao)
where the Senator got to see the poverty of the m asses and how
hisproj
ectisgoing tohelpthem .
B arbara Perz igianPerz igianis a form er cam paignadvisor.She

says thatY ee cares aboutpeople som uchthathe tak es the tim e
to do the unexpected. She also notes that Y ee shared withher
his m otivationto help others cam e from early childhood,H e
told m e his m em ories of watching wealthy wom e ndisrespe cthis
m other and how he was forced tositoutside of the hom es while
his m other cleaned because he was not allowed into the hom es.
H e told m e abouthow the residents of these hom es would com e
and go from the houses pushing the little boy aside as if he was
lessthana real person.L eland nevertold anyone these stories and
he certainly never harbored anim osity toward any group of
people as a result.B ut it was life experiences suchas these that
m ade L eland the guy who never overlook ed,and always wanted
tohelp,the un-represented of the com m unity.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Y ee im parted these values of serving his com m unity and standing up for others to his fam ily.
H e instilled the im portance of helping others to his children. Y ee be gantak ing his four childrenon
com m unity service trips and having them participate incom m unity service activities from very young
ages. (See L assartD ec.,Exhibit34,p.173-174).Y ee has strong ties tohis fam ily.Inadditiontobeing
m arried for43years and having fourchildren,Y ee alsohas a three-year-old granddaughterwithwhom
he isvery close.4 (Id.)
11
12
A lex Sowyrda Sowydra is Y ees form er staffer. H e believes

that Y ees actions were not representative of Y e es character or
intentions.Specifically,he feelsthatY ee wanted tohelpothersso
m uch that Y ee rej
ecte d the private sector for m ore m one y
because he wanted toserve the interests of the pe ople.M oreover,
he believes thatonce this case is behind him he will continue to
be a positive role m odel inthe com m unity and will find a way to
helppeople because thatiswhathe hasalwaysdone.
T he PSR is correct inack nowledging that Y ees exem plary character and M rs. Y ees severe
m edical conditionwarranta downward variance.
13
2.
14
15
16
17
Y ee has devoted his entire professional life topublic service.A lthoughhis involvem entinthis
offense occurred at the end of this tenure as a State Senator,his accom plishm ents while serving as a
State Senator,as well before and be yond,are rem ark able and should be considered inthe contextof his
sentencing.
18
19
20
21
22
Exem plary Service tothe C om m unity
T he PSR incorrectly asserts that m uch of [Y ees] good work s are directly related to his
em ploym ent,and are notseenas m itigating factors. (See PSR ,Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 3.)
A s his bill passage rate dem onstrates,and the PSR also acknowledges, Y ee has had one of the best
track records ingetting his bills passed and signed intolaw.H e has successfully passed 133pieces of
legislation,100of whichhave be enchaptered intolaw.(Id. atPage 29, 115.)T hese billshave had the
23
24
T he G overnm ent recently inform ed D efense C ounsel that they would be referencing inform ationin
25 their Sentencing M em orandum in regard to a relationship between Y ee and another wom an.
Presum ably,this inform ationis m eanttochallenge Y ees credibility and dedicationtohis fam ily. Y ee
26 ack nowledgesthisrelationship,whichlasted ove ra year,and alsonotesthatthe wom aninquestionhas
reached out to him to offer her full support and express her regrets inregard to what she specifically
27 told the G overnm ent,whichshe fe els is inaccurate,atbest.Y ee will furtheraddress this issue inre ply
tothe G overnm ents Sentencing M em orandum if the G overnm entchooses toreference this im m aterial
28 inform ation.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 purpose of aiding ineducation,dom estic violence relief program s,and healthcare thanm ostany other
2 senators. A dditionally,he has beenanactive volunteer inthe com m unity for ye ars,long before his
3 em ploym entrequired it.T hus,his good work s,discussed infurtherdetail below,m ustbe conside red
4 asm itigating factorsunderSection3553.
5
A fterserving four years inthe C alifornia State A ssem bly,Y e e was elected tothe State Senate
6 in N ovem ber 2006 with the largest winning percentage for any D e m ocratic candidate with a
7 R epublicanchallenger. In2010,Y ee was re-ele cted,receiving the m ost votes of any D em ocratic
8 legislator inthe State and garnering the largest winning percentage of any Senate candidate onthe
9 ballotinC alifornia.R epresenting D istrict8,whichincludesSanFranciscoand SanM ateoC ounty,Y ee
10 isthe firstC hinese A m ericaneverelected tothe C alifornia State Senate.
11
D uring his tenure inthe L egislature,Y e e fought for children,m ental healthservices,work ing
12 fam ilies,seniors,education,opengove rnm ent,consum erprotection,civil rights,and the environm ent.

13 H e consistently voted againstbudgetcutstoeducation,social services,and healthcare.
14
Since 2003,Y ee has beenone of the m ost active contributors to the State legislature and an
15 active voice forsocial equality.

16
17
18
19
20
Som e of hism ostim portantlegislative contributionsinclude:
2010: SB 650provides legal protections forU C em ployees who

are retaliated againstforreporting illegal orim properactions.
2009: SB 13 restores $16.3 m illionfor 94 dom estic violence

sheltersand centersthroughoutC alifornia.
2008: SB 1356 protects dom estic violence survivors from the

threat of incarceration when the y refuse to testify about the
m atterincourt.
2007:
21
22
23
SB 190 the H igher Education G overnance

A ccountability A ct,brings m aj
or transparency reform s to
the gove rning boards of the U niversity of C alifornia and
C alifornia State U niversity.
SB 999 to end the sentencing of life without the

possibility of parole foryouthoffenders.
24
25
26
27
28
2006: A B 2581 m ade C alifornia the first state inthe nationto

specifically prohibit censorship of college student press,
including school newspapersand broadcastj
ournalism .
- 25-
D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
2005: A B 1179 protects childrenfrom the harm ful effects of

ultra-violentvideogam es.
2004: A B 3042 helps protect children from being exploited

throughprostitution.
Y ee has beennam ed L egislator of the Y e arby 17 different organizations,including the
1
2
5 C alifornia School Em ployee s A ssociation,C alifornia Psychiatric A ssociation,C alifornia Partnershipto

6 End D om estic V iolence,SanFranciscoW om ens Political C om m ittee,C alifornia Faculty A ssociation,
7 and the A m ericanFederationof State,C ounty and M unicipal Em ployees.(Id.)
8
For his legislative and com m unity efforts,Y e e has also be enhonored withdoz ens of awards
9 from suchorganizations as the N ational EducationA ssociation,SanFrancisco C ollaborative A gainst

10 H um anT raffick ing,and Equality C alifornia.(Id.)
11 C .
A Sentence of51-63M onthsIsA ll thatIsN eeded toA ccom plishD istributive Justice a nd
A void U ndue D isparitiesunder 18U .S.C . 3553(a)(6)
12
13
Y ees sentence should be considerably less and,atm ost,nom ore thanthatof otherparticipants
14 inthis case or othe r sim ilarly situated defendants. D istrict courts m ay consider the need to avoid
15 unwarranted disparities betweencodefendants whoare sim ilarly situated and m ay com pare defendants
16 whendeciding a sentence. (See,United States v. Smart,518F.3d 800,804(10thC ir.2008);see also,
17 United States v. Parker,462F.3d 273,277(3d.C ir.2006).) H ere,based onthe factors setforthinthe
18 N ature & C ircum stances of the O ffense section above,both Y ee s substantial contributions to
19 society and hislim ited scope m ustbe considered.
20
H is sentence should be less and certainly no m ore thanothers,including Jack son. W hile the
21 PSR s sentencing calculationcorrectly states thatits recom m endations are atthe lowerend of the T otal
22 O ffense L evel of 27,italsoexplicitly states thatY ee was notpresentorinvolved inevery discussion
23 with K eith Jack son and the undercover agents. H e was also not prese nt every tim e m one y was
24 exchanged,nor is it certainthe collected m onies were actually provided to Y ee or the cam paign.
25 Further,K eithJack sons involvem entwas m uchm ore involved withthe C hee K ung T ong. (See PSR ,
26 Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 2.)
27
T he PSR is corre ct that unde r 18 U .S.C . 3553(a)(6),the sente nce should conside r the
28 ne e d to avoid unwarrante d sentence disparities am ong de fe ndants with sim ilar re cords who have
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 be e nfound guilty of sim ilarconduct.Inthe instantcase,Y e e s actions and the charges againsthim
2 are quite lim ite d whencom pare d toJack sons.
3
T he PSR corre ctly ack nowle dges that Jack sonhad aninvolve d role inthe C he e K ung T ong
4 (C K T ),D e fe ndant C hows organization. (PSR ,Se nte ncing R e com m e ndation,Page 2, 3.)T he
5 PSR state s that Jack sonwas a consultant to the C K T ,
and that he had a positionsim ilar to U C E
6 4599,whowas inducte d intothe C K T .(PSR , 22.)Y e e ,incontrast,had norole inthe C K T ,aside
7 from atte nding som e of their events and fundraisers. H e was not aninducted m e m be r,nor did he
8 consultwiththe irleadership.
9
T he PSR also corre ctly points out that Jack son had re gular interaction with U C E 4599
10 during the course of the investigation,extrane ous of any de alings that U C E 4599 had with Y e e .
11 Jack sonm et with U C E 4599 to discuss a conspiracy to traffic cocaine across state line s. (PSR ,
12 22.)D uring the inve stigation,the re were m ultiple conve rsations withU C E4599aboutthe de tails of
13 the drug ope ration of K eith Jack son,B randon Jack son and Sullivan involving the inte rstate
14 distributionof drugs. (Id.)Y e e had no k nowle dge of,or involve m e nt with,the drug traffick ing
15 ope ration.
16
Jack sonalso e ngage d ina separate arm s traffick ing conspiracy with U C E 4599,of which
17 Y e e had nok nowledge .(Id.)T his conspiracy we nta greatde al furtherthanthe conspiracy thatY ee
18 has ple ad to,with Jack sonm ee ting m ultiple tim e s with U C E 4599,and e ve ntually se lling U C E
19 4599various types of fire arm s and ballistic ve sts.(PSR , 22.)
20
Inadditiontothese conspiracies,Jack sonalsom etwithU C E4599and conspired toengage ina
21 m urder for hire schem e at U C E 4599s request. U C E 4599 and Jack sonhad m ultiple conversations
22 re garding this m urderforhire plot.Sim ilartothe drug traffick ing conspiracy and the arm s traffick ing
23 discussed above,Y ee had nok nowledge orinvolvem entwiththe m urderforhire plot.
24
T he PSR further enum e rate s the m ultiple steps that Jack sontook inthe drug traffick ing
25 conspiracy discusse d above .5 T hese m ee tings illustrate that Jack son was serious about carrying
26
5
PSR 44expandsonJack sonsrole inthe drug traffick ing conspiracy,and U C E2pressuring

27 Jack sontofurtherhisownagenda.PSR 44:A tanothe rm e eting betwe e nU C E-2,K e ithJack son,
and B randonJack sononD e cem be r13,2013,the y discussed the cocaine de al,and U C E-2provide d
28 K eithJack sonwith$1,
000as ince ntive forse tting upa m e eting withthe arm s dealer A s a
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 throughthe drug traffick ing conspiracy,and using his continue d contact withU C E 4599for ille gal
2 e nds. Y e e did not k now of the se m ee tings,or partak e in them . For this re ason,a downward
3 variance is warranted.
4
Jack sonwas e ngage d inm any m ore ille gal activities thanY ee . T he se activities include d
5 plotting to tak e the life of another hum anbe ing.T he im pact of the charges against Jack sondo not
6 com pare tothe charge s againstY e e.T here fore,tose nte nce Y e e and Jack sontothe sam e am ountof
7 tim e violates 18 U .S.C . 3553(a)(6). Jack son and Y e e have not be en charge d with sim ilar
8 conduct.T he y should nothave sim ilarsentence s.
9
T he alle gations against Y e e re volve around the ce ntral claim thatY e e was acce pting m one y
10 ine xchange forpolitical favor.T he charges againstJack sonare a gre atdeal m ore varied and se ve re.
11 H owever,the PSR proposes that Y e e and Jack sonre ce ive e quivale nt sente nces. T o do so would
12 propound the unwarranted sente nce disparitiesthatSe ction3553endeavors toavoid.T he refore ,a
13 downward variance is warrante d based onthe disparity of the charge s againstY e e and Jack son.
14 D .
Section3553(a)(2): G eneral Purposesofthe C rim inal Justice System .
15
A ccording to Section3553(a)(2),it is appropriate to consider four general purposes of the
16 crim inal j
ustice system insentencing: (1)j
ust punishm ent,to reflect the seriousness (or lack of
17 seriousness of the offense);(2)general deterrence,to discourage others from com m itting the sam e
18 acts; (3) specific deterrence,to discourage the defendant from com m itting the sam e acts; and
19 (4)rehabilitation. (See generally, 18U .S.C . 3553(a)(2)(A )-(D ).)
20
H ere,the PSR s proffere d G uideline calculationof 27would resultina patently unreasonable
21 recom m ended sentence whenconsidered inrelationto the purposes of sentencing,and a guideline

22 range of not m ore than51-63m onths,along withappropriate departures,is warranted.(See Adelson,
23 supra,at 506(finding that the G uideline calculations led to a result so patently unreasonableas to
24 require a non-G uideline sentence based onothe rsentencing factors).)
25
26
27 m e eting withthe arm s deale rk eptbe ing postponed by Jack son,U C E-2told Jack sonand B randon
Jack sonthatthe cocaine de al would be delaye d until the m e eting withthe arm s de aler
28 m ate rialized.
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1.
JustPunishm ent
T he C ourt m ust render a j

ust punishm ent that prom otes respect for the law. 18 U .S.C .
ust
3 3553(a)(2).Y ee subm its thatthe PSR s proffered G uideline sentence of 27would resultinanunj
4 sentence,given the PSR s proffered m iscalculations with respect to financial contributions and
5 firearm s discussed supra.Y ee does notdispute thatProbationm ustrecom m end a punishm entbased on
6 the offense towhichhe has pled guilty.T he evidence of financial contributions thoughdoes notadd up
7 tothe figure proffered by the G overnm ent.T he G overnm entm ustbe puttoits burdenonthis issue,as
8 a m iscalculationcanhave a substantial im pact onthe guideline range,especially whenconsidered in
9 the context of other possible enhancem ents. (See, Hopper,supra,at 832-33 (finding cle ar and
10 convincing evidence standard applies when an enhancem ent would have an extrem ely
11 disproportionate effectonthe sentence).) Inaddition,Y ee subm its that there is no evidence of an
12 actual num ber of firearm s traffick ed or intended to be traffick ed,and thus,the addition of that
ust sentence. A sentence of 51-63 m onths,with
13 attendant enhancem ent would result in an unj
14 appropriate downward departures,is sufficient,but not greater thannecessaryto com ply with the
15 purposesof punishm ent.(See, Gupta, supra, at353.)
16
2.
G eneral D eterrence
17
Y ee recognizes that public trust inelected officials is of great im portance and that political
18 im propriety is a serious issue.Inaccepting responsibility,Y ee has tak ena substantial stepinadm itting
19 his wrongs tothe public.H is case and his plea garnered significantpublic attentionthroughthe m edia.
20 T he m essage sent by the G overnm ent in its prosecution,and by Y ee through his acceptance of
21 responsibility,isone of respectforthe law.
22
Y ee subm its that the bulk of the general deterrence im pact has alre ady occurred through the
23 process of his public exposure and hum iliationby way of the indictm entand m edia coverage,as well
24 as his subsequentplea.A m odestsentence will achieve whatevergene ral deterrence value is lefttobe
25 accom plished. (See, Adelson,supra,at 514.)R ather thanim posing a significant prisonsentence,the
26 C ourtm ay considera reasonable financial burdentoachieve the goalsof se ntencing.
27
3.
Specific D eterrence
28
W ithrespect tothe k inds of sentences available,the sentencing range established for,and any
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 pertinent policy statem ent,it is im portant to consider the A m endm ents to the Sentencing G uidelines
2 which increase the availability of non-custodial sentences for certain non-violent offende rs.6
3 M oreover,withrespecttorecidivism ,Y ee presents norisk .H e is 67years old and will neveragainbe
4 em ployed inpublic office.7 T he Sentencing C om m issionhas also found that first offende rs like Y ee
5 are rarely reconvicted of a crim e.Infact,only 3.5% of firstoffenders withz erocrim inal history points
6 are eve r reconvicted.8 Y ee has never before beeninvolved inthe crim inal j
ustice system . T his is his
7 very firstencounter,and givenhis age and lack of future em ploym entinpublic office,there is norisk
8 of future crim inal conduct.
9
4.
10
R ehabilitation
Y ee subm itsthathe does notrequire any specific m edical,vocational,ortherapeutic treatm ent.
11
V.
A D D IT IO N A L SEN T EN C IN G C O N SID ER A T IO N S
12 A .
D ownward D epartures
13
T he G overnm ents proffered G uideline sentence is not appropriate inthis case.H oweve r,if a
14 G uideline sentence isapplied,the following downward departures are warranted.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
See U .S. Sentencing C om m ission,A m endm ents to the Sentencing G uidelines (M ay 3,2010)(T he
am endm ents,whichtook effectN ovem ber1,2010,increase the availability of non-custodial sentences
for certain non-violent offende rs,based on recognition of increased interest in alternatives to
incarcerationby all three branches of governm e nt and renewed public debate about the size of the
federal prisonpopulationand the need forgreateravailability of alternative stoincarcerationforcertain
non-violent first offenders.) see also 28 U .S.C . 944(j
) (T he G uidelines reflect the gene ral
appropriateness of im posing a sentence other thanim prisonm ent incases inwhichthe de fendant is a
first [tim e] offender who has not been convicted of a crim e of violence or otherwise serious
offense )
7
O ne of the priorities of the U .S. Sentencing C om m issionfor the upcom ing am endm ent cycle is
priority num ber (6):U ndertak ing a com prehensive,m ulti-year study of recidivism ,including (A )
exam ination of circum stances that correlate with increased or reduced recidivism ; (B ) possible
developm ent of recom m endations for using inform ationobtained from suchstudy to reduce costs of
incarcerationand overcapacity of prisons;and (C )considerationof any am endm ents tothe G uidelines
M anual that m ay be appropriate in light of the inform ation obtained from such study.
(http://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/am endm ent-process/federal-re gisternotices/20150622_FR _Proposed_Priorities.pdf.)For exam ple,the Sentencing C om m issionindicates
thatdefendants overthe age of forty ...exhibitm ark edly lowerrates of recidivism incom parisonto
younger defendants. (See, U.S. Sentencing Commn, Measuring Recidivism: The Criminal History
Computation of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines at 12,28 (M ay 2004).) Y ee is 67 years old,and
only 6.2% of firsttim e offendersoverthe age 50recidivate. Id.at28.
8
(U.S. Sentencing Commn, Recidivism and the First Offender atExhibit6(M ay 2004).) O nly 11.7%
of all firstoffenders everfind them selves back inthe crim inal j
ustice system (defined as reconviction,
re-arrest,orrevocation).(First Offender atExhibit6.)
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1.
C ivic,C haritable,and Public Service
Y ees exem plary charitable and public service work s,docum ented supra,warranta downward
3 departure.(See U .S.S.G . 5H 1.11.)

4
Evenif incarcerated,Y e e intends tohelpothers. H e wants toresum e actively helping others in
5 the com m unity as soonas possible.H e would like towrite curriculum tohelpat-risk students succeed
6 inschool,aswell ashelpfightglobal healthdisparity issues.
7
2.
A ge
M r.Y ee will be 67by the tim e he is sentenced,and althoughage is notordinarily relevant,itis
9 pertinentasitrelatestothe reduced likelihood of recidivism .

10
3.
11
A ccording toU .S.S.G . 5H 1.6,(note 1B ):
12
13
14
15
16
C aretak ing
(B ) D epartures B ased onL oss of C aretak ing or Financial Support.

A departure under this policy statem ent based onthe loss of caretak ing
orfinancial supportof the defendant's fam ily requires,inadditiontothe
court's consideration of the non-exhaustive list of circum stances in
subdivision(A ),the presence of the following circum stances:
(i)
T he defendant's service of a sentence within the
applicable guideline range will cause a substantial,direct,and
specific lossof essential caretak ing,oressential financial support,
tothe defendant'sfam ily.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(ii) T he loss of caretak ing or financial support substantially

exceeds the harm ordinarily incident to incarceration for a
sim ilarly situated defendant. For exam ple,the fact that the
defendant's fam ily m ightincursom e de gree of financial hardship
or suffer to som e extent from the absence of a parent through
incarcerationis not initself sufficient as a basis for departure
because suchhardshiporsuffering is of a sortordinarily incident
toincarceration.
(iii) T he loss of caretak ing or financial support is one for
whichnoeffective rem e dial oram eliorative program s reasonably
are available,m ak ing the defendant's caretak ing or financial
supportirreplaceable tothe defendant'sfam ily.
24
25
26
27
(iv) T he departure e ffe ctively will address the loss of

caretak ing orfinancial support.
Inaccordance withthe above,Y ees financial and caretak ing responsibilities certainly warrant
a downward departure.T he PSR ack nowledges thatY ees wife has several m edical conditions and
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 requiresthe defendant'sassistance fordaily task s.(PSR , 141.) H erphysician,D r.L ee,haswritte na

2 letter to the C ourt whichdetails M rs.Y ees illnesses. (L assart D ec.,Exh.34,p.90.) M rs.Y ee was
3 diagnosed with advanced stage N on-H odgk ins lym phom a in2012,and as a result of chem otherapy
4 losta greatdeal of weight.(PSR , 141.)She rem ainsata highrisk of m alnutritionand falling.(Id.)
5
A s a resultof the chem otherapy forlym phom a,M rs.Y ee developed neuropathy,whichcreates
6 painornum bness inherlim bs.(Id.)T he neuropathy inherlefthand is severe,and has resulted inher
7 inj
uring herself seve ral tim es. (Id.)She additionally has problem s walk ing due to being unable to
8 com pletely feel her feet,and m ust use a cane or wheelchair. (Id.)M rs. Y ee now also suffe rs from
9 depression,insom nia and chronic anxiety.(Id.)
10
A dditionally,M rs.Y ee has developed Sj

ogrens Syndrom e,and has scarring onherlungs.T his
11 has resulted inherhaving a chronic coughand affected he rvisionsoseverely thatshe nolongeris able
12 todrive.(Id.)
13
M rs.Y ee is com pletely reliantuponY ee forherday today care and routines.M rs.Y e e has not
14 work ed outside the hom e for 30 years,and the Y ees financial situationrem oves at hom e care as an
15 option.Y ees incarcerationwill have a direct and substantial im pact onM rs.Y ees healthdue to her
16 continued reliance uponhim for daily task s. A s D r. L ee has stated,M rs. Y ees prognosis is fair as
17 long asshe cancontinue onhercurrentre gim enswithsupportfrom fam ily asneeded.(Id.)
18
T he PSR notes thatT he defendants wifes severe m edical conditions,and need forM r.Y ees
19 continued care,would norm ally be considered a m itigating factor.H owever,the defendantcom m itted
20 the instantoffense afterM rs.Y ee firstbe cam e seriously ill in2012,and did notconsiderherhealthas
21 a deterrent factor from com m itting his crim es.(See PSR ,Sentencing R ecom m endation,Page 3.)
22 R egardless of Y ee s adm itted m istak es,M rs.Y ees continued care is a reality that will not disappear
23 due not to being considered by M r. Y e e as a deterrent factor. T he Y ees four children are all
24 professionals withm any other obligations,and are unable to provide M rs.Y ee withthe level of care
25 that she requires ona daily basis.T he Y ees financial situationthus does not allow for the hiring of
26 professional care forM rs.Y ee,whichwould surely be required should Y ee be unable tocare forheron
27 a daily basis. M rs. Y ee,by her ownright,has contributed substantially to her com m unity (L assart
28 D ec.,Exh.34,p.174)and the daily care from herhusband is absolutely critical toherhealthand life
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 expectancy.T hus,M rs.Y ees healthconditionshould continue tobe considered as a m itigating factor
2 by thisC ourt.
3
4.
A sdescribed supra, Y ee sbehaviorinthiscase re presenta m ark ed deviationfrom anotherwise
A berrantB ehavior
5 exem plary,law abiding life,and,therefore,warranta downward departure.

6
7
V I.
C O N C L U SIO N
L eland Y ee is 67ye ars old and has led anexem plary life withanexcellentem ploym enthistory,
8 including countless instances of generously contributing to his com m unity. Infact,Y ee has always
9 extended him self tothose inneed.H e has spenthis entire life helping others.Indeed,incarcerationat
10 his age and with his wifes grave physical conditiondoes not m ak e sense and a sentence of hom e
11 confinem entwould be equally efficientand lesscostly thanincarceration.
12
Y ee did notcom m itthe charged offense outof greed.H e did notlive a lavishlifestyle ordesire
13 expensive things. Y ee did not directly benefit financially for providing his assistance to further
14 crim inal activity.U nfortunately,Y ee did notadhere tohis lifetim e principles of honesty and integrity.
15 H e recognizes that his actions were wrong and he is rem orseful and dee ply regrets his conduct. H is
16 widely publicized crim inal activity has served as his ownprivate punishm ent.H e em barrassed him self,
17 hisfam ily,and com m unity by thisshock ing digressionfrom hishonorable careerinpublic service.
18
A lthough there is no excuse for having violated the law,the C ourt should consider a
19 defendants m otivationwhenviewing the circum stances of the offense. Y ee was well respected for
20 m any years due tohis strictadherence todothe rightthingnom atterthe costtohim politically orto
21 hisfuture em ploym entinpolitics.Y ee isdeeply asham ed of hisdeparture from thispersonal policy.A s
22 he noted inhis statem ent,he allowed his desire toraise cam paignfunds inorder tobe com petitive in
23 the race forSe cretary of State tocom prom ise his j
udgm ent.H e continues toagonize abouthis decision
24 to engage inthese illegal acts.H owever,as ack nowledged inthe PSR ,som e of the transactions were
25 expanded by Jack sonalone and Y ee was notaware of all negotiationsorprom isesJack sonm ade onhis
26 behalf. Jack son did not work for Y e e,so Y e e was neve r aware when Jack son received actual
27 contributions or whether the m one y even went to his cam paign fund. R egardless of these
28 considerations,Y ee adm its thathe should nothave becom e involved inthis conductora discussionof
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 sale of fire arm s. Y ee also ack nowledges that his actions are very serious and warrant punishm ent.
2 H owever,the guidelines are drivenby the unfairam ountof lossinthis case as well as the am ountof
3 guns Y ee was purported tohave agreed toobtain.T hese enhanced calculations donotreflectthe true
4 nature of thisoffense.
5
W hendeterm ining anappropriate sentence,the C ourt m ust find a solutionthat is sufficient,
6 butnotgreaterthannecessary. Particularly inlightof recentle gislationaim ed atreducing the bloated

7 prison system which is at 38%
overcapacity and addressing B O P budgetary problem s and
8 overcrowding,itdoes notm ak e sense toincarcerate a defendantforany term whois already 67years

9 old and whose wife issuffering from a life threate ning illness.Y e e learned from hisillegal conductand
10 is rem orseful.H e has provenhis ability and propensity tohelpothers and benefitthe com m unity ina
11 tangible m anner.
12
T he C ourt m ust consider a sentence that m ak es sense and is tem pered and balanced which
13 considers all of the obj

e ctives of sentencing. Y e e is anextraordinary,ge nerous,and k ind m anwho
14 respectfully requests thatthe C ourtview his life inits entirety,notsim ply the tim e fram e during which
15 he com m itted the instantoffense,and toweighthe negative and positive equally.
16
For the fore going reasons,Y ee respectfully requests a below-G uideline sentence. Y ee agrees
17 withthe PSR thathe should notreceive a sentence gre aterthanthose agreed toby the co-conspirators.
18 If a G uideline sentence is recom m ended,Y ee subm its,however,that it should not exceed a total
19 offense level of 24.Y e e respectfully requests thatthe C ourtconsiderhis long history of public service
20 and personal sacrifices,and the service he has provided to others. H e accepts responsibility for his
21 offense conductand isdeeply sorry forthe harm and painhisactionshave caused.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
1 D ated:February 17,2016
M U R PH Y ,PEA R SO N ,B R A D L EY & FEEN EY
2
3
B y /s/JA M ES A .L A SSA R T
Jam esA .L assart
N icholasC .L arson
A ttorne ys forD efendant
L EL A N D Y EE
4
5
6
21039159.doc
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C ase N o.
C R 14-00196-C R B -2
Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320-1 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
JAMES A. LASSART(SBN 40913)

NICHOLAS C. CARSON(SBN 275870)
MURPHY,PEARSON,BRADLEY & FEENEY
88 Kearny Street, lOt~' Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 788-1900
Facsimile:
(415) 393-8087
Email:
JLassart(c~mpbf.com
NLarson o,mpbf.com
Attorneys for Defendant
LELAND YEE
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11 ~ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

12
Plaintiff,
13
14
LELAND YEE,
Case No. CR 14-00196-CRB-2

DECLARATION OF JAMES A.
LASSART IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT LELAND YEE'S
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND
MOTION FOR DEPARTURE
15
Defendant.
l6
17
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Ctrm:
February 24, 2016

10:00 a.m.
Hon. Charles R. Breyer
6, 17t~' Fl.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DELCARATION OF JAMES A. LASSART IN SUPPORT OF
DEFENDANT LELAND YEE'S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Case No.
CR 14-00196-CRB-2
DECLARATION
1
2
I, James A. Lassart, declare that:
1.
I am an attorney duly licensed to practice in all courts of the State of California, and am
a Partner of the law firm of Murphy, Pearson, Bradley &Feeney, attorneys of record for Defendant
Leland Yee herein. I make this Declaration in Support of Defendant Yee's Sentencing Memorandum
and Motion for Departure. I have personal knowledge of the information set forth herein below, unless
noted as based on information and belief, all of which is true and correct of my own personal
knowledge, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2.
9
10
Legislative Accomplishments.
11
12
3.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated May 17,
4.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a May 17, 2013 Conversation
2013.
13
14
Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a list of Leland Yee's
between Keith Jackson and UCE 4180 at 2:25:43-2:26:26.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Excerpts of government's
15
5.
16
response to PSR.
17
6.
18
Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of June 22, 2013 Conversation
19
7.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of the UCE's list of weapons.
20
8.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated August 2,
22
9.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated September
23
13, 2013.
21
2013.
24
25
26
27
28
10.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated October 17,
11.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated December
2013.
13, 2013.
12.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated December
-1DELCARATION OF JAMES A. LASSART IN SUPPORT OF
Case No.
CR 14-00196-CRB-2
1 ~ 17, 2013.
2
13.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of a January 22, 2014
3 ~ Conversation between Leland Yee and UCE 4599, at 00:49:43-00:50:3.

4
14.
5 ~ Conversation between Leland Yee and UCE 4599, at 1:02:42-1:03:27.

6
15.
7~ ~ Conversation between Keith Jackson and UCE 4599, at 1:12:05-1:12:23.

81
16.
9 ~ Conversation between Keith Jackson and UCE 4599, at 14:55-15:05.

10
17.
11 ~ Conversation between Keith Jackson and UCE 4599, at 18:05-18:19.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 17 is a true and correct copy of a February 25, 2014
Conversation between Keith Jackson and UCE 4599, at 00:17:40-00:18:22.

19.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 18 is a true and correct copy of a February 25, 2014
Conversation between Keith Jackson, Leland Yee and UCE 4599, at 00:52:20-00:52:51.
20.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 19 is a true and correct copy of a March 5, 2014
21.
22.
23.
Conversation between Keith Jackson, Leland Yee, Wilson Lim and UCE 4599, at 1:14:45-1:16:45.
24.
25.
26.
Case No.
CR 14-00196-CRB-2
2
3
4
5
18
19
20
21
Attached hereto as Exhibit 30 is a true and correct copy of a June 22, 2013 conversation

32.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 31 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated October 1,
33.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 32 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated March 22,
34.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 33 is a true and correct copy of an FBI 302 dated April 30,
35.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 34 is a true and correct copy of character letters submitted in
2011.
2013
16
17
Attached hereto as Exhibit 29 is a true and correct copy of an example of Keith
31.
14
15
Attached hereto as Exhibit 28 is a true and correct copy of an example of Keith
Jackson's conversations with undercover agents dated February 27, 2012.
12
13
29.
30.
10
11
Attached hereto as Exhibit 27 is a true and correct copy of an PBI 302 dated August 8,
Jackson's conversations with undercover agents dated September 23, 2011.
8
9
28.
2014.
6
7
Attached hereto as Exhibit 26 is a tzue and correct copy of a March 11, 2014
27.
2013
support of defendant Yee.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 35 is a true and correct copy of a video of character
36.
witnesses in support of defendant Yee.
22
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
23
foregoing is true and correct and that this Declaration was executed on this 17th day of February 2016,
24
in San Francisco, California.
25
26
James A
ssa
27
21039150.doc
28
Case No.
CR 14-00196-CRB-2
Leland Yee Legislative Accomplishments

Yee has been named Legislator of the Year by 17 different organizations including the
California School Employees Association, California Psychiatric Association, California
Partnership to End Domestic Violence, San Francisco Womens Political Committee, California
Faculty Association, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
In addition, he was named Person of the Year by GamePolitics.com.
For his legislative and community efforts, Senator Yee has also been honored with dozens of
awards from such organizations as the National Education Association, California Newspaper
Publishers Association, San Francisco Collaborative Against Human Trafficking, Equality
California, Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods, California Women for Agriculture,
California Animal Association, A. Philip Randolph Institute, First Amendment Coalition, and
Environment California. In addition, Californians Aware dubbed Yee Senator Sunshine for his
open government work and the California Labor Federation named him a Labor Warrior for
protecting working families.
Since 2003, Dr. Yee has one of the best track records in getting his bills passed and signed into
law. In fact, he has successfully passed 133 pieces of legislation, of which 100 have been
chaptered into law.
In 2010, Senator Leland Yee had 18 bills chaptered into law. Most notably, SB 650 provides
legal protections for UC employees who are retaliated against for reporting illegal or improper
actions. SB 438 ensures that charter schools adhere to the states student speech and employee
protection laws. SB 535 allows access to the High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) highway lanes for
the latest generation of low-emission vehicles. SB 782 prohibits landlords from unfairly evicting
survivors of domestic violence. SB 880 requires all children under age 18 to wear helmets while
skiing and snowboarding. SB 677 allows courts to seize any property, such as house or
automobile, used in the commission of human trafficking.
In 2009, Senator Leland Yee had 9 bills chaptered into law. Most notably, SB 13 restores $16.3
million for 94 domestic violence shelters and centers throughout California. SB 340 protects
consumers by requiring businesses to clearly and conspicuously enumerate all automatic renewal
offer terms and obtain customers affirmative consent. SB 447 helps protect children from sexual
predators and other violent criminals by reforming the criminal background check law at youth
organizations. SB 786 protects the right of individuals to enforce open government laws without
fear of a significant financial burden and ensures that public entities act with greater
transparency. SCR 48 makes California the first state to officially declare October as Filipino
American History Month.
In 2008, Senator Leland Yee had 14 bills chaptered into law. Most notably, SB 1356 protects
domestic violence survivors from the threat of incarceration when they refuse to testify against
their abuser in court. SB 697 bans the predatory practice of balance billing for low-income
families. SB 1217 provides public oversight of the state bar pilots commission. SB 1250 is
designed to reduce recidivism by allowing greater family communication for incarcerated youth.
SB 1370 protects high school and college teachers and other employees from retaliation by
administrators as a result of student speech. SB 1419 protects San Francisco pedestrians by
declaring a double-fine zone on 19th and Van Ness Avenues. SB 1696 allows greater public
access to government contracts as well as audits and reviews of public agencies.
In 2007, Senator Leland Yee had 11 bills chaptered into law. Most notably, SB 190 the Higher
Education Governance Accountability Act, brings major transparency reforms to the governing
boards of the University of California and California State University. SB 230 grants the
Broadmoor Police Department with all the powers and responsibilities of a municipal police
force. SB 279 addresses illegal organized vehicle sales which cause a public nuisance and safety
concerns. SB 523 increases the number of child support payments collected in San Mateo
County by establishing a program to allow judges to order an unemployed child support obligor
to seek work at the initial support hearing. SCR 52 calls for shared governance by workers of
the University of California employees pension plan.
In 2006, Yee had 10 bills chaptered. Most notably, AB 2581 made California the first state in
the nation to specifically prohibit censorship of college student press, including school
newspapers and broadcast journalism. AB 450 requires disaster preparedness agencies to
consider household pets, service animals, equines, and livestock in emergency evacuation
planning. AB 1969 increases the production of renewable energy in California by allowing
water and wastewater agencies to sell environmentally-friendly energy such as small hydro,
solar, and biogas produced by their treatment and delivery facilities to electrical companies.
AB 1207 adds sexual orientation to the list of protections in the Code of Fair Political Practices.
AB 409, emergency legislation, establishes new health standards to protect nail salon
consumers. ACR 106 officially declares Californias White Ribbon Campaign, an effort of men
against violence.
In 2005, 12 Yee-authored bills were chaptered into law. Most notably, AB 1179 protects
children from the harmful effects of ultra-violent video games. AB 451 returns millions of
dollars to airport communities across the state. AB 637 allows properly trained foster parents to
administer life-saving shots for their foster children. AB 800 guarantees a patients spoken
language is included in his/her medical records. AJR 14 officially declares Californias
opposition to any weakening of the federal offshore oil drilling moratorium.
In 2004, Yee had 11 bills chaptered into law. Most notably, AB 3042 helps protect children
from being exploited through prostitution. AB 2412 helps part-time community college faculty
to access earned unemployment benefits. AB 1793 gives parents a tool in choosing appropriate
video games for their children by requiring retailers to post signs about the rating system. ACR
195 brings greater awareness of the need for literacy instruction for visually impaired students
through the use of Braille. ACR 158 officially declares each January as Mental Wellness Month
in California.
In 2003, Yees first year in the Legislature, he had all 15 of his bills signed into law. Most
notably, AB 504 increased fines for littering in parks and open space districts. AB 938 offers
incentives to mental health practitioners working in medically under-served communities. AB
1102 requires evaluation of current mental health sensitivity training for law enforcement
officers. AB 1371 strengthens informed consent requirements for mentally ill patients involved
in medical research.
Other notable legislation authored by Yee include: AB 292 (2004) to prohibit the use of children
as medical interpreters; AB 443 (2005) to improve school nutritional standards; AB 1321 (2005)
to protect patients from receiving unfair bills for medical services covered by their insurance; AB
1113 (2005) to help strengthen the profession of acupuncture by allowing diagnosis within an
acupuncturists scope of practice; AB 1818 (2004) to protect the health and safety of snowmobile
consumers; SB 999 (2007) to end the sentencing of life without the possibility of parole for

youth offenders; SB 1505 (2008) to increase and better define the legal rights of state
whistleblowers; SB 86 (2009) to prohibit executive pay raises during bad budget years at the UC
and CSU; SB 242 (2009) to prohibit businesses from denying service to patrons based on their
spoken language; SB 840 (2010) to require reporting of violent and sexual crimes against
minors; SB 920 (2010) to allow consumers to opt-out of receiving the telephone directory; SB
220 (2010) to mandate health insurance policies to cover tobacco cessation services; SB 330
(2010) to update the California Public Records Act to include auxiliary organizations that
perform government functions at the UC, CSU, and community colleges; SB 1029 (2010) to
allow pharmacies throughout California to sell sterile syringes to an adult without a prescription
in order to stop the spread of HIV and hepatitis C; and SB 1451 (2010) to ensure California
textbooks are not affected by the curriculum changes made in other states.
Ex~~~~ 3~
~'s.~
eo a yee

2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 1 of 41

1 JA M ES A .L A SSA R T (SB N 40913)

D EFEN D A N T L EL A N D Y EES SEN T EN C IN G M EM O R A N D U M

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 2 of 41

T H EPR O PER G U ID EL IN EC A L C U L A T IO N S FO R Y EEIN D IC A T E

T he G overnm entsProposed Sentencing Enhancem entsH ave a D isproportionate

N oM onetary Enhancem entIsW arranted inC ount214..................................................6

T he Enhancem entforthe T otal N um berof Firearm s Is B ased onSpeculation,

U C E4599R elied onthe A ssertionsof Jack soninY eesA bsence...................11

T he L aterC onversations B etweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4599Illustrate

Federal C ase L aw Illustratesthe Insufficiency of the Evidence against

T H ESEN T EN C IN G C R IT ER IA O F18U .S.C .SEC T IO N 3553A L SO PO IN T

N ature and C ircum stancesof the O ffense ......................................................................20

Section3553(a)(1):Y eesH istory and C haracteristics.................................................21

Exem plary C haracter..........................................................................................22

Exem plary Service tothe C om m unity...............................................................24

Section3553(a)(2):G eneral Purposesof the C rim inal Justice System ........................28

Specific D eterrence ............................................................................................29

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 3 of 41

A D D IT IO N A L SEN T EN C IN G C O N SID ER A T IO N S .............................................................30

C ivic,C haritable,and Public Service ................................................................31

C aretak ing ..........................................................................................................31

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 4 of 41

United States v. Restrepo,

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 5 of 41

3 United States v. Sapoznik,

United States v. W illis

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 6 of 41

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 7 of 41

A s further set forthbelow,anoffense level of no m ore than24(51-63m onths)is warranted,

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 8 of 41

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 9 of 41

2 re garding undercoveroperations,toinclude the specific m andate toavoid entrapm ent.Inthis instance

17 enoughtok now thatthe co-conspirator,whencharged,has,inm ostinstances,noopportunity tode feat

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 10 of 41

T hroughouthis professional care er,and inhis personal life,Y ee has beenanindependentvoice

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 11 of 41

T H EPR O PER G U ID EL IN EC A L C U L A T IO N S FO R Y EEIN D IC A T E

4 Booker, 543U .S.220,244-246(U .S.2005).)T he overarching statutory charge fora districtcourtis to

and instead it should m ak e anindividualized

T he G overnm ents Proposed Sentencing Enhance m entsH ave a D isproportionate Effect

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 12 of 41

N oM onetary Enhance m entIsW arranted inC ount214.

24 re gard tothe enhancem ent.T he G overnm entproffers that$60,

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 13 of 41

Y e e did not acce pt $60,

W henthe conversations betweenY ee,Jack sonand U C E4180are exam ined intheirentirety,it

23 m eeting,Y ee and U C E4180are discussing a continuing relationshipand U C E4180s fundraising,and

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 14 of 41

O nJune 15,Jack sonand U C E4180agreethatthe y will discuss paym entonbehalf of the

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 15 of 41

A fterJack sonreturns,U C E4180explicitly states I canhelphim withthis N FL thing,buthe

17 [Y ee] wont commit. (L assart D ec.,Exhibit 5,June 22,2013 C onversationat 01:13:15-01:13:25,

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 16 of 41

relevant conduct.);United States v. McClatchey, 316 F.3d 1122,1129 (10th C ir 2003)(internal

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 17 of 41

4 transactioninwhichJack sonportrayed anintenttocom plete should be considered j

U C E4599R elied onthe A ssertionsofJack soninY eesA bsence.

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 18 of 41

T he firstconversationcited inthe PSR re garding firearm s is betwe enJack sonand U C E4599,

T he G overnm entseek sa 10level enhancem entbased onitsproffered 200firearm sfigure.

Case 3:14-cr-00196-CRB Document 1320 Filed 02/17/16 Page 19 of 41

1 L eland Y ee is associated with anunidentified R ussianindividual who was aninternational arm s

O nA ugust11,2013withY ee still absent,Jack sontells the U C Ethathe is attem pting tosetup