United States v. Jing Qian Jiang

Citations: 376 F. Supp. 2d 1153; 96 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5132; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13936; 2005 WL 1560406Docket: CR 04-1467 JB

Court: District Court, D. New Mexico; April 12, 2005; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Defendant Jing Qian Jiang filed objections to the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) prior to a sentencing hearing held on March 28, 2005. The primary consideration was whether to accept the stipulated sentence from the Plea Agreement, despite its deviation from the United States Sentencing Guidelines (Guidelines). The Court ultimately determined that the proposed sentence of time served and forfeiture of $8,261 was reasonable and aligned with the sentencing goals of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

Jiang, originally from Fujian, China, entered the U.S. in 1997, settled in Albuquerque in 2001, and lacked legal authorization to remain. He is married to a lawful permanent resident and has two U.S. citizen daughters. On March 10, 2005, Jiang pled guilty to multiple counts, including Making and Subscribing a False Tax Return and various immigration-related offenses. The PSR calculated Jiang's offense level as 14 with a criminal history category of I, resulting in a sentencing guideline range of 15 to 21 months and a fine range of $5,000 to $50,000.

The Plea Agreement specified a sentence of time served and a forfeiture of $550,000, with Jiang jointly liable alongside co-defendants. This forfeiture amount included the seized $8,261. Additionally, Jiang stipulated that his offenses were aggravated felonies, confirming his status as a deportable alien. During sentencing, the Court expressed concerns regarding the deviation from guideline sentences and Jiang's financial situation, which was clarified by both parties as part of a broader plea agreement involving multiple defendants.

In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court invalidated the mandatory nature of the Sentencing Guidelines by declaring them advisory, requiring judges to consider both the Guidelines and the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) when imposing sentences. These factors include the seriousness of the offense, deterrence, public protection, and the need for rehabilitation. Specifically, § 3553(a)(2) outlines purposes such as reflecting the seriousness of the offense and providing just punishment, while § 3553(a)(1) to § 3553(a)(7) directs consideration of the offense's nature, available sentences, avoidance of disparities, and restitution to victims.

Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows for plea agreements that bind the court to a specific sentence if accepted. Additionally, U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0(d)(4) permits departures from the Guidelines for justifiable reasons when agreed upon in a plea. However, it remains unclear whether the parties in this case are seeking a downward departure or simply a variation under Booker. The court must first establish the correct Guideline sentence before determining the appropriateness of a departure.

The Presentence Report (PSR) indicates that Jiang's case does not present circumstances that would distinguish it from typical cases in the district, and neither party objected to this assessment. Consequently, the court expressed concern regarding the lack of grounds for a departure under the Guidelines. Ultimately, even if a departure were warranted, the court opted not to exercise that option based on the specific facts of this case.

The Court faces challenges in distinguishing Jiang's case from others involving defendants who enter the U.S. illegally and commit crimes. It aligns with Probation's assessment that Jiang's case is typical and determines not to authorize a departure from sentencing guidelines, as the case does not present unique circumstances warranting such a departure. The Court denies any objections for a downward departure, asserting that the punishment outlined in the plea agreement is appropriate.

Jiang has no prior convictions and has served eight months in detention, which the Court finds sufficient. A potential sentence of 15 months, considering time served, would not significantly differ from the plea agreement. The Court also addresses concerns regarding fines due to Jiang's financial situation, which shows limited assets derived from his income as a kitchen worker. Jiang does not hold ownership in any business and has minimal equity in a home, alongside vehicle loans and some credit card debt. He and his wife have small life insurance policies but no significant financial resources. The crime primarily impacts the U.S. rather than specific victims, and the Court concludes that restitution is unnecessary as the United States will recover financial losses from tax underreporting.

Jiang and his spouse will forfeit significant assets as part of a plea agreement. The U.S. seized $8,261 from Jiang's residence, which he has agreed to relinquish. Additionally, the U.S. will recover $550,000 from various sources, including amounts already taken or frozen and future earnings from co-defendants, who are all jointly liable. This agreement will financially impact the organization involved, allowing the U.S. to benefit from the seized assets without challenge from the defendants. Jiang has pled guilty to an aggravated felony, which will likely lead to his deportation, a factor the Court will consider when imposing the sentence. The stipulated sentence is deemed sufficient to serve public needs and address victim concerns. The Court believes the sentence, while differing from the Guidelines, better fulfills the goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) compared to a standard Guideline sentence. Upholding this plea is of societal interest, as rejecting it could result in lengthy jury trials. The U.S. has evaluated the costs associated with litigation and the potential outcomes. Sentencing disparities have been considered, as co-defendant Linda Ali has already been sentenced to time served, while Jiang remains in custody. The U.S. established its plea policy based on the defendants’ culpability, a factor the Court may weigh when deciding on sentence variations. The plea agreement has been accepted, with Jiang's objections largely resolved beforehand. The Court sustained one objection, clarifying Jiang's employment status with Grand China, Inc. The need for correctional services is minimal, particularly given Jiang's anticipated deportation post-release.