I think I’ve just seen something revealing what happened at the Langston sentencing. This post has some total speculation and I will warn you when I get to it. First, I have to explain some legal stuff for lay folk.
The sentencing guidelines are a baroque system, using “baroque” as it is literally used in art criticism: all these little decorations and filigrees that finally make you want to scream. The basic set-up is a series of rules (that someone ought to put into an expert system so we can just plug in the variables and let a damn machine point toward answers). You look at a starting point that is the particular crime, plug in a bunch of variables, and out pops a number that tells you where to look on a chart of sentencing ranges.
Parts of the calculation are obvious and transparent. Parts are not — the probation service has to draw some conclusions about the facts, and they do that based on “inside information” from the prosecution and defense and from an independent investigation.
Now comes the I’m-just-thinking-and-speculating-aloud part.
My question is whether the guideline calculation here points to a fact that is not public, at least not yet — what the government has concluded was given as a bribe in the Wilson case.
Here’s why.
Joey was only being sentenced for a bribe in the Wilson v. Scruggs case. At sentencing, a bribe for a public official has several factors — a base level (12 for a nonpublic official), up 2 for more than one bribe (I think not here), up to 18 if it involved an elected official, down 3 for big-time acceptance of responsibility, which leaves us at 15.
Where now? There’s one other factor, and that’s this one:
“If the value of the payment, the benefit received, or to be received in return for the payment, the value of anything obtained or to be obtained by a public official or others acting with a public official … whichever is greatest, exceeds $5,000, increase by the number of levels from the table in 2B1.1.”
If the rest of my back-of-the-envelope guess is correct, the 2B1.1 bump must have driven this up 12, which means that the amount of the bribe was more than $200,000 and less than $400,000.
Okay. We know that Joey, Peters, and Patterson split $3M three ways, and that this is a fifth of some wild-guestimate of what Scruggs thought he was saving. $3M would have caused a bump of 18 (which was my guess before today) and $15M a bump of 20. Before today, I thought the dollars would bump this 18 to 20 points. But it bumped it 12. Why did the probation service select the number 12, which points toward $200-400K?
Is that what the government thinks was “the value of anything obtained or to be obtained by a public official”?
I have no idea if you’ve nailed it or not but I like the way you got there.
How do you value a U.S. Senator’s promise of being considered for appointment to the federal bench when the nomination never materializes? I agree with NMC that the government and the court had a more tangible measure because of the $3M divided up by Langston and his [still alleged] co-conspirators. That seems to fall within the category of “value received” by those offering the bribe — but not as a direct result of DeLaughter’s decision in the fee case, but as the value of the services of Langston et al. as perceived by the direct beneficiary of the decision — Mr Scruggs. Could it be that the government was a bit uncertain as to the way this benefit should have been calcualted and so opted for a lower $ figure to which Langston would not have been in a position to dispute?
Would it have anything to do with the uncertainty as to whether DeLaughter’s decision was legally correct (as he maintains it was)?
I have questions but no answers.
Here’s Jerry Mitchell’s report, which, via the mention of Joey’s health problems, gives me a thought. If he gets sick while in prison, Joey could very well end up in my MO hometown, which has a big medical center for federal prisoners. There’s at least one other, in Chillicothe, OH, I believe, but Springfield might be the handier.
Interesting factoid: Because it happened on November 22, 1963, most people never heard that Robert Stroud, the Birdman of Alcatraz, died at Springfield Federal Medical Center. (More recently, so did the Teflon Don, John Gotti.)
It was suggested to me off-blog that Joey Langston may have received an increase for being a leader or organizer of a group doing a crime. If he was and the group was over five folks, he gets an increase of 4; if he was only a manager not a leader, he gets an increase of 3.
I think it’s clearer from the comments that Scruggs was the leader here, but may be wrong.
But if Joey is a leader, and gets an increase of 4 or that, then we only have to explain dollars needed to increase the count 8 points, which means $70-120,000 (and makes no sense to me. How would you arrive at that number?). I’m still going with my initial speculation but would love the views of others.
What is the salary for a federal judge? Could that amount be used to determine the bump?
160 or 165,000
but what’s a life income stream of 160-165 worth?
How’s Dickie doing these days? Is he in some kind of rehab in prison? Granting interiews? Does he have Internet access? Would he be willing, now that it’s all over, to post here? It is all over, isn’t it? And Lott? What about Lott? And Nutt? And Wyatt? And Sparky? What about Ma Lobrano? Cori? Kerri? The Trailers?
3rd:
1) I’ve heard it said from a reliable source that he does not find prison pleasing. 2) I’m told no. 3) Not that I’ve heard. With another case out there I’d doubt it. 4) surely not, although there was a joke about him being paged to the pay phone when Ole Miss was having to give David Nutt a raise 5) Hey, I’d let his comments through to the list. 6) No. Read again what Dawson said. 7-end) phew that’s a lotta names.