U.S. v. Rama (Rama Sentencing Memo)

8/20/2019 U.S. v. Rama (Rama Sentencing Memo)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/us-v-rama-rama-sentencing-memo 1/6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *

v. * Case No. 1:15-CR-143

JAMES M. RAMA * Honorable Gerald Bruce Lee

Defendant * Sentencing: October 9, 2015

*

DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO POSITION OF UNITED STATES

WITH RESPECT TO SENTENCING

Defendant, James Rama (“Mr. Rama”), through his counsel, Joseph A. Malouf and William

C. Brennan, Jr. and Brennan McKenna Manzi Shay, Chtd., respectfully submits this response to

the Position of the United States with Respect to Sentencing filed on October 2, 2015.

I. INTRODUCTION

Mr. Rama entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to a single count

criminal information on June 16, 2015 which charged him with conspiracy to violate the Foreign

Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Sentencing is scheduled for

Friday, October 9, 2015.

Mr. Rama respectfully requests, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and Gall v. United States,

552 U.S. 38 (2007), that this Honorable Court impose a variant sentence of supervised release

with a condition of community confinement and/or home detention with a special condition of

performing extensive community service and a $100 special assessment, because such a sentence

is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing set forth

in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Case 1:15-cr-00143-GBL Document 19 Filed 10/05/15 of 6 PageID# 102



2

The parties agree that Mr. Rama’s total offense level is 25 and, when combined with a

criminal history category of I, results in a guideline range of 57 to 60 months in Zone C. (PSR

¶¶49, 53, 83-84). However, that guideline range seriously overstates Mr. Rama’s criminal

culpability in this specific matter and would result in an unwarranted sentence disparity given the

peculiar circumstances of this case.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Both the factual stipulation in support of the plea and paragraphs 5 through 34 of the PSR

sufficiently and adequately delineate the individual offense conduct of Mr. Rama. However, it is

critical to understand his conduct within the broader circumstances which gave rise to this crime.

During the period in question Mr. Rama was an employee of IAP World Wide Services, Inc.

(“IAP”). According to its website IAP was founded in 1953 and today employs over 1,600

personnel working in over 110 locations in more than 20 countries (https://www.iapws.com-

/about/history/). Beginning in the early 2000’s IAP, intent on expanding its business

opportunities in Kuwait, looked for ways to obtain a contract with the Kuwaiti government to

build a national surveillance system which became known as the Kuwaiti Security Program

(“KSP”). According to the United States “The KSP was a significant project to the Kuwaiti

government, which would have spent a substantial amount of money if the KSP had been

completed. To a company like IAP, it presented a significant business opportunity in outfitting

the entire country of Kuwait with security cameras, border screening, and other surveillance

systems.”1 (Emphasis added) Accordingly, the entity which stood to immensely profit in this

case was IAP - not Mr. Rama. The government concedes as much. “Defendant himself did not

personally profit from the bribery conspiracy (other than through receiving his normal IAP salary

1 , Position of United States with Respect to Sentencing.

Case 1:15-cr-00143-GBL Document 19 Filed 10/05/15 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 103

https://www.iapws.com-/about/history/






3

and bonuses.”2 The major financial incentive was with IAP and its more senior managers – not

with Mr. Rama.

Thus, Mr. Rama was a minor, albeit integral, part of a much larger scheme concocted by

more senior executives at IAP – none of whom will be prosecuted in this case. In addition, IAP

has entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the government and agreed to pay a $7.1

million penalty to resolve the matter. It would appear that Mr. Rama is the only individual who

will face criminal prosecution in this matter. That will result in an “unwarranted sentence

disparity” among the participants in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6).

B. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The Presentence Report in this case sufficiently and adequately outlines Mr. Rama’s

personal, educational, vocational, and employment background. (PSR ¶¶ 57 – 81) Of note, Mr.

Rama is now 69 years old and reluctantly retired. Given his age and his conduct in this case with

the attendant publicity, Mr. Rama is essentially unemployable – hence his unwilling retirement.

His work life has for all intents and purposes come to an end. (PSR, ¶¶ 69-70)

His personal life is also in disarray as the result of his conduct in this case. Mr. Rama fully

accepts responsibility for his conduct and he has no one to blame for his current situation other

than himself. Although he and his wife have separated (as the result of the stress accompanying

this case) he maintains a close relationship with her and provides care for her since she suffers

from Retinitis Pigmentosis which makes her legally blind. (PSR, ¶ 61)

His current financial situation is also dire. Because of his involvement in this case he could

only find work as a retail cashier and truck cleaner at a U-Haul dealer in Odenton, Maryland.

(PSR, ¶ 70) He and his wife were compelled to rely on their personal savings to get by during the

pendency of this investigation and they were then forced to file for personal bankruptcy. (PSR, ¶

2 Page 5, Position of United States with Respect to Sentencing.




4

79) His income has precipitously dropped over $350,000.00 from 2009 to 2012. Again, Mr.

Rama acknowledges that this financial disaster was of his own making; but, it is nonetheless a

significant collateral consequence of his conduct in this case.

While counsel for Mr. Rama could (hopefully) wax eloquently about Mr. Rama’s character,

the best measure of a person can and should be gleaned from those who know him the best – in a

work, community and religious environment. Accordingly, counsel has attached to this

memorandum, character letters from longtime friends and associates of Mr. Rama. They speak to

his character, his generosity, and his true humanity. These letters movingly describe the real

person that is James Rama.

C. To Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct

Whenever good people become involved in non-violent criminal activity there is a legal

collision between a defendant’s innate goodness and the need to deter others from similar

conduct. General, as opposed to specific, deterrence is a concern in this case as it is in most

criminal cases. Mr. Rama has learned his lesson – there is no need to reform his conduct.

However, what message can and should the Court send to deter others from similar conduct?

The basic rationale for general deterrence is that if there is no punishment others will attempt

to engage in similar conduct – first with the hope that they will not get caught and, second, if

they do get caught there will be little, if any, adverse consequences. Does the crime thereby

become a risk worth taking?

Human behavior is influenced by many factors – incarceration is but one of many negative

inducements available. There are significant and far-reaching collateral consequences for

engaging in a federal criminal conspiracy. Mr. Rama has ruined his good name. His personal

humiliation has been extreme. An adult lifetime of friendships developed in his work




5

environment has been destroyed. Mr. Rama has effectively forfeited his work career. As

mentioned above his employment prospects are virtually non-existent.

Depriving Mr. Rama of his freedom by home confinement, followed by community service,

would have a demonstrable and long term effect on his conduct and the conduct of others. Why

must it always be “jail time?” A sentence of home confinement would serve the sentencing

directive of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) to impose a “just punishment” on Mr. Rama, as well as

the directive of adequately deterring criminal conduct in general pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a)(2)(B). See United States v. Qualls, 373 F.Supp.2d 873, 877 (E.D. Wis. 2005)

(“Generally, a lesser period of imprisonment is required to deter a defendant not previously

subject to lengthy incarceration than is necessary to deter a defendant who has already served

serious time yet continues to re-offend.”)

III. CONCLUSION

The sentencing judge [is] to consider every convicted person as anindividual and every case as a unique study in the human failingsthat sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and punishment to ensue.

United States v. Koon, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996).

Upon considering the characteristics of Mr. Rama and his offense, this Court should find that

a sentence of home confinement with a special condition of performing extensive community

service and a $100 special assessment, is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to comply

with the purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Mr. Rama is prepared to respect and serve whatever sentence that is imposed by this Court

and is determined to return to his family and his community a better person.




6

Respectfully submitted:

_________/s/___________________

Joseph A. Malouf, Esq., VSB 31839244 Main Street, 3rd FloorGaithersburg, MD 20878(301) [email protected]

_________/s/___________________William C. Brennan, Jr., Esq.(Entered pro hac vice) 6305 Ivy Lane, Suite 700Greenbelt, MD 20770

(301) [email protected]

Counsel for Defendant, James M. Rama

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 5th day of October, 2015, a copy of the foregoing Motion was

electronically filed via the CM/ECF system with a notification of such filing sent to all parties of

interested listed in the above matter.

__________/s/____________________Joseph A. Malouf, Esq.


mailto:[email protected]






U.S. v. Rama (Rama Sentencing Memo)

Documents

Transcript of U.S. v. Rama (Rama Sentencing Memo)