Daniel Mule Defense Memo

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 79
Federal Defenders
OF NEW YORK, INC.
Eastent District
One Pierrepont Plaza-16t1i Floor, Brookyn, NY 11201
Tel: (718)330-1200 Fax: (718) 855-0760
David E. Paccon
E.~ze~eiire Director and
~a~to~l~cy-ni-Chief
Em~mm Di~~tricr
Peter Kirclzheimer
Aamnc~--in-Chn~~e
July 10, 2015

The Honorable Nicholas G. Garuafis
United States District Court Judge
Eastern District of New York
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, New York 11201
U.S.A. v. Daniel Mule. 14-CR-269 (NGGj
Your Honor:
Mr. Mule pled guilty to possession of child pornography, a violation of 18 U.S.C.
2252(a)(4)(B). Mr. Mule is scheduled to be sentenced on July 22, 2015, at 10:00 a.m.
We respectfully request that the Court impose anon-guideline sentence of at least five
years of supervision in this case. Although the sentencing guidelines, as currently written,
recommend a sentence of custody of 78 to 97 months in Mr. Mule's case, we believe this
sentence is much greater than that necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing.
In December 2012, the Sentencing Commission issued a report to Congress identifying
problems with the current sentencing guideline for child pornography offenses and
recommending changes to that guideline. U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, Report to the Congress: Federal
ChildPornography Offenses (Dec. 2012) ["Comm'n ReporP'), available at
www.ussc.gov/Legislative and Public Affairs/Congressional Testimony_and_Reports/Sex_Off
ense_Topics/201212 Federal Child Pornography_Offenses/index.cfm. Among the changes
recommended was a change in how enhancements to the base offense level are determined.
Looking at Mr. Mule's offense conduct in light of the Sentencing Commission's
recommendations for change, we believe that no enhancement to the base offense level would be
seen as necessary in Mr. Mule's case. Using the base offense level as a frame of reference and
granting a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, yields a guideline recommendation of 18 to
24 months in custody. This is a guideline recommendation approximately eight years lower than
the current guideline recommendation.
We believe a sentence lower than 18 to 24 months is further justified in Mr. Mule's case
for a number of reasons. First, his commission of the instant offense was completely outside of
his character, which is one of a demonstrated commitment to his family, his friends, and his
community. Second, Mr. Mule has demonstrated his ability to change his behavior. There was a
significant delay between the seizure of Mr. Mule's computer equipment containing child
pornography in September 2013 and his arrest in April 2014. At the time of his arrest, Mr. Mule
was not found to be in possession of any additional child pornography. We believe this
demonstrates that Mr. Mule has the ability to refrain from the commission of the offense conduct
and a sentence of custody is not necessary to achieve this change. Finally, while on pretrial
release Mr. Mule has participated in mental health counseling and his active participation in
counseling has led to marked improvement in his mental health. Mr. Mule has also stopped
abusing marijuana, and has maintained full employment. We believe that all of these facts
demonstrate that a period of incarceration is unnecessary in his case and that the goals of
sentencing can be more effectively achieved through a sentence of supervision.
I. The factors to consider in determining sentence.
Pursuant to the holding of United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the Court is
required to consider the sentencing guidelines as one of several sentencing factors enumerated in
18 U.S.C. 3553(a). 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) requires the Court to impose a sentence sufficient, but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the sentencing purposes set forth in 3553(a)(2).
1. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1).
Pursuant to this factor, the Court is required to consider the nature and circumstances of
the offense and the history and characteristics of Mr. Mule.
A. The nature and circumstances of the offense.
Mr. Mule found child pornography while exploring peer to peer (P2P) programs on the
Internet. The more he found, the more he became interested in child pornography, and began
downloading it. Mr. Mule was ashamed of his interest and did not want his family to know about
it. Once the pornography had been downloaded, Mr. Mule would store it on SD memory cards,
and delete it from his computer. After the Department of Homeland Security seized Mr. Mule's
computers and memory cards, it hit home for Mr. Mule how wrong leis actions had been in
viewing and keeping the material, and he stopped immediately. When he was arrested 8 months
later, he had no new child pornography in his possession, and had not engaged in any viewing or
downloading of the material.
B. The history and characteristics of Mr. Mule.

1) Personal History.
Mr. Mule's personal history is accurately reported in the PSR at R36 through 64, Dr.
Drob's forensic evaluation', and the letters from his family and friendsZ enclosed with this
submission. Mr. Mule was raised by his parents until they separated when he was aboutl0 years
old. Mr. Mule continued to live with his mother and sister after the separation. Although his
father left the household, he provided financial support, but the family lived under low income
circumstances. At the age of 12, Mr. Mule began selling candy door to door to help support the
family, and has been working ever since. Mr. Mule continues to live with his mother, and has
continued to help support her and his father during their financial downturns.
As his family and friends detail in their letters to the Court, Mr. Mule is an extraordinary
young man. He financially supports and cares for his mother and emptied his retirement fund to
help his father through a period of unemployment. Mr. Mule maintained full time employment
throughout the prosecution of this offense, despite the humiliation of being fired from his job
after and because of his arrest. Finally, in addition to the support he gives his family and friends,
he contributes to his community, as evidenced by his help to the residents of Staten Island during
the Hurricane Sandy recovery. These achievements are an extraordinary display of responsibility
for anyone, but are particularly striking in a man as young as Mr. Mule.
Mr. Mule graduated from high school in June 2007, and began attending CiJNY Coliege
of Staten Island. Mr. Mule has had to work full time while attending college, but hopes to be
able to graduate in the near future. Mr. Mule is involved in a long term romantic relationship,
and has no children. This is Mr. Mule's first arrest.
lEnclosed as exhibit B.
~Bnclosed as exhibit A.
@J
2. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2).
The Court is also required to consider the following four factors in determining
the need for the sentence imposed (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect
for the law; and to provide just punishment for the offense; (B) to afford adequate deterrence to
criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to
provide the defendant with needed educational, or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner.
A. A sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for
the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.
The offense Mr. Mule committed in this case is serious and requires punishment. The
issue for the Court is what punishment will promote respect for the law and provide just
punishment as well.
A sentence that focuses on mental health treatment and supervision, as opposed to
custody, is still a sentence that reflects the seriousness of the offense. In the Eastern District of
New York, an individual on probation or post release supervision for a child pornography offense
is supervised and treated by a special Sex Offenders Unit which utilizes the Containment
Approach Model. This model uses intensive supervision by probation officers, mental health
treatment by professionals, and polygraph exams to ensure compliance with the terms of
supervision. Additionally, on probation or post release supervision, supervisees have limitations
on their use of computer equipment and Internet access. Post release supervision in the Eastern
District of New York has been detailed in a memorandum prepared by Lawrence M. Andres, Jr.,
a Supervisory U.S. Probation Officer in the Eastern District, in response to a query by the
Honorable Jack B. Weinstein, Senior U.S. District Court Judge. A copy of that memorandum is
enclosed as exhibit D.
In addition to the restrictions of supervision, Mr. Mule will have the stigma of a felony
conviction, and the added stigma of a conviction for possession of child pornography, a sex
offense, for the rest of his life. Not only does a felony conviction prevent an individual from
obtaining certain licenses and can restrict voting while in custody, it makes it extremely difficult
to find employment. Mr. Mule has already felt this stigma when he was fired from his job when
news of his arrest and offense hit the local Staten Island newspapers. In addition to the
restrictions of a felony conviction, Mr. Mule will also have to register as a sex offender for 20
years.
A sentence of supervision in the Eastern District of New York is intensive and, in
combination with the collateral consequences of a felony conviction, ensures that such a sentence
reflects the seriousness of the offense and provides just punishment for the offense. We believe
that a sentence of supervision for an individual, like Mr. Mule, who has been able to refrain from
criminal behavior for a lengthy period of time between the government's learning of his crime
and his subsequent arrest for the crime, and has actively been working on his mental health
treatment since his release on bond, will further promote respect for the law by demonstrating
that the ability to change one's conduct and work towazds rehabilitation is an important fact in
sentencing.
B. A sentence to adequately deter criminal conduct.
Mr. Mule was able to refrain from criminal conduct involving child pornography for the 8
months from when his computer equipment was seized until he was arrested. At this point, as he
told Dr. Drob, Mr. Mule understands that "his actions were not normal and were not right, and
that he has to accept their consequences."
A sentence of incarceration, however, is not necessary to achieve the goal of deterrence.
Instead, as noted above, a sentence of supervision in the Eastern District of New York will
provide Mr. Mule with treatment, supervision, and the use of polygraph examinations to deter
and confirm that he is not involved in criminal conduct. The threat of incarceration for any
violation of the terms of supervision, will also help achieve the goal of deterrence.
C. A sentence to protect the public from any future crimes on the part of Mr.
Mule.
A sentence of supervision will protect the public from any future crimes on the part of
Mr. Mule. As noted above, the threat of arrest and conviction deterred Mr. Mule from additional
criminal conduct after his computer equipment had been seized. Mr. Mule has no prior criminal
record, so there is no criminal history that shows a need to protect the public. Intensive
supervision and mental health treatment will help Mr. Mule address the underlying causes of his
interest in child pornography and protect the public from future crimes on his part. Finally, Mr.
Mule will have to register as a sex offender, which will put the public on notice of his prior
offense, and protect the public from any future crimes on his part.
Additionally, as noted in the Sentencing Commission's report to Congress and the
Probation Departments memorandum, it appears that recidivism among individuals arrested for
possession of child pornography who have no prior history of sex offenses is low. The
Sentencing Commission conducted a recidivism study of individuals sentenced for nonproduction child pornography offenses who were sentenced between 1999 and 2000. The
Commission chose this group as offenders who would have offended when computers and the
Internet were commonly used in the commission of these offenses, and who would provide a
minimum of two years of follow up time. Comm'n Report at 293-294. Out of the 610 offenders
followed, 582 of them had follow up periods of 60 months or greater, and the average follow-up
period for all 610 offenders was eight and one half years. Id. at 298, ftnt 24. This period of
follow up continued well beyond the term of supervision for most of the individuals followed,
given that the statutory maximum at the time of sentencing of these individuals was three years.
The Commission found the recidivism rate as a whole for the group was 30%, and the
sexual recidivism rate was 7.4%. Id. at 299-300. Of those who recidivated, approximately two
thirds did so during their terms of supervision, and one third recidivated after their terms of
supervision ended. Id. at 301. The Eastern District reported that as of 2010 they had supervised
108 offenders convicted of a child pornography offense since 1999. Although those offenders
had 244 instances ofnon-compliance with supervision, supervision was revoked in only 12.9%
of the cases. Additionally, the Eastern District had only one offender known to have committed a
sexual contact offense while under supervision. Ex. D at 3.
While there is no known predictor of risk of recidivism for child pornography offenders
with no prior history of sexual contact offenses, emerging research has identified a number of
factors that may be predictive of risk, most importantly sexual deviance and anti-sociality, and
variables like the age at first offense, criminal history, failure of conditional release, lower
education, being single, involvement with minors on-line, and indiscriminate sexual behavior
with adults. Comm'n Report at 286-287.
Mr. Mule has none of these risk factors or variables in his personal history. He has no
prior history of sexual deviance or anti-sociality, he was 25 years old at the time of his arrest for
the instant offense, he has no criminal history, his only failure in conditional release was taking
an un-prescribed Valium to ease his anxiety approximately a month after his arrest, he has almost
completed a college education, he is single but he has had a number of serious romantic
relationships lasting a number of years, he has had no involvement with minors on line, and he
has no abnormal history of indiscriminate sexual behavior with adults.
Dr. Drob also evaluated Mr. Mule for the risk of recidivism, using the SVR (Sexual
Violence Risk) 20 and the LS/CMI (Level of Service/Case Management Inventory). Again, on
both tests, Mr. Mule was rated a very low risk of recidivism. Ex. B at 9-12.
For all of these reasons, we believe a sentence of supervision would be sufficient to
protect the public from any future crimes on the part of Mr. Mule. We believe that a period of
supervision of at least five years would be similar to the period of time of the follow up study the
Sentencing Commission undertook and appears to be a period of time sufficient to allay any
concerns that Mr. Mule is a risk for recidivism.
D. A sentence to provide needed educational, vocational, or medical

treatment.
Mr. Mule has almost completed his college degree and is gainfully employed full time.
He does not need a sentence to provide educational or vocational treatment. Mr. Mule is not in
need of medical treatment, and his continued mental health counseling, possible sex offender
therapy, and monitoring for substance abuse could be more easily and inexpensively provided as
part of a sentence of supervision rather than custody.
3. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(3).
The Court must consider the kinds of sentences available in Mr. Mule's case. Mr. Mule
does not face a mandatory sentence, so all sentences are available to the Court.
4. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4) and 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(5).
The Court must consider the applicable recommended guideline sentence and whether
there are any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission that would affect
Mr. Mule's sentence.
The guideline calculation in the Presentence report (PSR) is technically correct. The
Probation Department noted, however, in x!86 of the PSR, that guideline 2G2.2 can (and the
defense believes in this case does) lead Yo a sentence that is inconsistent with the mandates of 18
U.S.C. 3553(a).
In United States v. Dorvee, 616 F. 3d 174, 188 (2"d Cir. 2010), the Second Circuit found
that 2G2.2 is "an eccentric Guideline of highly unusual provenance which, unless carefully
applied, can easily generate unreasonable results." The Court noted that 2G2.2 was not
formulated by the Sentencing Commission using an empirical approach based on past sentencing
data. Instead, the Court in Dorvee found the guideline to be based on mandates from Congress
requiring harsher and harsher penalties. Id. at 184-186. The Court found the mandated guideline
results in sentences that routinely come close to the maximum statutory penalty for run of the
mill cases because specific offense enhancements penalize conduct that is inherent in the
commission of the crime for virtually all offenders. Id. at 186-187. The Court noted that the
typical guideline calculation is much higher than guideline calculations for offenses involving the
use of guns or violence. Id. at 187-188.
The Second Circuit was not alone in its concern about guideline 2G2.2. The Sentencing
Commission prepared a report to Congress because of a number of concerns they saw with the
guideline and sentencing for possession of child pornography and other non-production offenses.
The Commission said the reasons it promulgated the report were first, the Commission was
concerned about the increase in the number of cases coming under the purview of this guideline;
second, the Commission was concerned about the decrease in guideline sentences imposed postBooker and post-implementation of the PROTECT Act (where Congress mandated specific
changes to this guideline); third, the Commission was concerned about the inability of the current
sentencing scheme to differentiate between offenders based on their degrees of culpability;
fourth, the Commission was concerned that new social science research provided insight into
offenders and offense conduct that was relevant to sentencing yet not reflected in the guideline;
and finally, the Commission was concerned about a belief on the part of most of the parties
involved in the federal criminal justice system that the child pornography sentencing scheme was
seriously outmoded. Comm'n Report at ii-iii.
The Commission's report addressed, among other things: the current guideline and the
sentencing disparities it creates, the changes in the technology used to commit child pornography
offenses, post conviction issues in child pornography cases, and recidivism among child
pornography offenders. The report came up with findings and recommendations to Congress as
to how the guideline, as well as statutory penalties and supervised release terms, should be
changed. The major findings of the Commission can be found in Chapter 12 of the Comm'n
Report at 311-320. Based on those findings, the Commission made two recommendations that
we believe should be considered by the Court in its determination of an appropriate sentence for
Mr. Mule.
First, the Commission recommended amendments to 2G2.2, that would consider three
categories of offender behavior as the primary factors in determining sentences under this
guideline. These categories are:
1) the content of an offender's child pornography collection and the nature of an
offender's collecting behavior (in terms of volume, the types of sexual conduct
depicted in the images, the ages of the victims depicted, and the extent to which
an offender has organized, maintained, and protected his collection over time,
including through the use of sophisticated technology);
2) the degree of an offender's engagement with other offenders in particular, in
an Internet "community" devoted to child pornography and child sexual
exploitation; and
3) whether an offender has a history of engaging in sexually abusive, exploitative, or
predatory conduct in addition to his child pornography offense.
Id. at 320. The Commission specifically noted that
"[t]he presence of aggravating factors from any of these three categories, even without the
presence of any aggravating factors from the other two categories, warrants enhanced
punishment depending on the degree that aggravating factors from that category are
present in a particular case. The presence of aggravating factors from multiple categories
generally would warrant a more severe penalty than the presence of aggravating factors
from a single category." Id. at 321.
The Commission went on to say that the current guideline placed a "disproportionate emphasis"
on outmoded measures of culpability, like the number of images possessed; but placed too little
emphasis on other relevant aspects of collecting behavior, like involvement in child pornography
communities and sexual dangerousness. Id. at 321.
Second, the Commission recommended continued study into the recommendation of
maximum supervision time for all individuals convicted of child pornography offenses, which is
currently lifetime supervision. The Commission noted that the recommendation for a term of
supervision at the maximum was initially made when the maximum term of supervision for such
offenses was three years, and the recommendation was not modified when Congress increased
the term of supervision under the PROTECT' Act to a minimum of five years and a maximum of
lifetime supervision. Id. at 325-326.
A. Mr. Mule's current guideline calculation and the Commission's findings
and recommendations.
Mr. Mule's guideline calculation is as follows:
Base offense level:
SOC': possession of images of prepubescent minors:
SOC: portrayal of sadistic/masochistic conduct
SOC: use of a computer:
SOC: more than 600 images:
Timely acceptance of responsibility:
Total offense level:
2
4
2
5
-3
28
Mr. Mule's criminal history category is I, and his guideline recommendation for imprisonment is
78 to 97 months in custody.
As both the Court in Dorvee and the Sentencing Commission noted, the SOC
enhancements applied in Mr. Mule's case are applied in the mine run of cases, resulting in
sentencing recommendations that aze at or exceeding the statutory maximum for most possession
of child pornography offenses. Dorvee, surora, at 186; Comm'n Report at 210 ("the typical
defendant in fiscal year 2010 sentenced under the current version of 2G2.2 received a minimum
cumulative enhancement of 13 offense levels".)
As shown in the table below, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, about 95% of all individuals
convicted of child pornography possession offenses received enhancements for possession of
images of a prepubescent minor (P/P/M), for use of a computer, and for the number of images
possessed. A majority also received an enhancement for sadistic/masochistic images (S/M).
Comm'n Report at 209. With respect to the enhancement for S/M, every appeals court that has
Specific Offense Characteristic

10
addressed the issue has found the enhancement applies to any images depicting sexual
penetration of a child by an adult, finding them "per se" sadistic. Id. at 33-34.
FY10 Application Rates of Enhancements in 2G2.2
In its recommendations, the Sentencing Commission found that the enhancements for
collecting behavior (P/P/M, S/M, and number of images) did not distinguish among offenders
with respect to their culpability in their collecting behavior. This resulted in a guideline range
that is overly severe for some offenders given the nature of their collecting behavior. Id. at 323.
The Commission recommended instead that the guideline be updated to consider the extent to
which an offender catalogued his collection by age, gender, or type of sexual activity depicted;
the duration of an offender's collecting behavior; and the number of unique as opposed to
duplicate images possessed by the offender. Id. at 323.
The Sentencing Commission also recommended that the offender's engagement in child
pornography "communities" would be a better measure of culpability than the enhancements for
distribution and use of a computer. Id. at 323-324. One of the Commission's findings was that
the intemet has facilitated the growth of child pornography communities that normalize and
validate the sexual exploitation of children, promote the market for child pornography, and may
encourage the production of new images of child pornography; with some offenders being
actively involved in those communities, and others not. The commission found that there was
impersonal distribution, involving making images available to others via P2P file sharing
programs, without any personal contact between the offenders; and personal distribution, where
two way communication between offenders was involved. The Commission inferred that
individuals involved in personal distribution were involved in, or trying to become involved in,
creating a child pornography community on the Internet. Id. at 313-314. The Commission
recommended revising the guideline to differentiate between offenders based on the degree of
their child pornography community involvement and the nature of their distribution conduct, and
to punish those involved in child pornography communities more severely. Id. at 324.
11
R. Revisiting Mr. Mule's guideline calculations based on the

recommendations of the Sentencing Commission.
Clearly the Court has to calculate Mr. Mule's guidelines under the sentencing scheme set
forth in the Guidelines, United States v. Reinhold, 731 Fad 204, 230 (2d Cir. 2013)("While the
district court is required correctly to calculate and fairly to consider the Guidelines, see18 U.S.C.
3553(a)(4), nothing in this opinion is intended to limit the district court's discretion to consider
a non-Guidelines sentence pursuant to United States v. Booker "). We believe, however, that to
some extent, the guidelines can be used as a framework by the Court in fashioning a nonguidelines sentence, and that is what we propose to the Court below. As we noted above, the
sentencing guideline as set forth in the PSR is technically correct.
To begin with, base offense level 18 places the offense of possession of child
pornography on a par, in terms of sentencing recommendation, with other offenses involving
force, violence, the threat of force, or serious injury. Those offenses include involuntary
manslaughter (2A1.4(a)(1)(2)(A)), statutory rape (2A3.2), stalking (2A6.2), extortion by
force (2B3.1), slavery (2H4.1(a)(2)), distribution of information relating to explosives
(2K1.3(a)(3)), and possession of a sawed off shotgun, machine gun, silencer, or destructive
device (2K2.1(a)(5)). Given that these offenses carry a base offense of 18, we believe base
offense level 18 is more than sufficient to represent the seriousness of Mr. Mule's general
conductin possessing child pornography.
12
As a result, using the guidelines as a reference point for anon-guideline sentence, we

believe base offense level 18 encompasses a sentencing range sufficient to punish the conduct
committed in this offense, and that no additional enhancements for aggravating behavior are
necessary. With a reduction of 3 levels for acceptance of responsibility, the total offense level
would be I5, and the recommended guideline range of imprisonment in criminal history category
I would be 18 to 24 months. This appears to be a sentencing range that is substantively
reasonable for the majority of child pornography offenses, given the seriousness of the offense
conduct of possession of child pornography, and the applicability of this sentencing range for
other serious offense conduct like manslaughter, statutory rape, slavery, and possession of
dangerous firearms.
While we believe that this is a substantively reasonable sentence for the offense conduct
as set forth generally, we do not believe it is a reasonable sentence for Mr. Mule. Given his
ability to restrain his offense behavior, his progress in and commitment to mental health therapy,
and Mr. Mule's history of employment and financial support of his family from a very young age,
we believe a sentence of supervision will be sufficient, but not greater than necessary to achieve
the goals of sentencing, and that no custodial sentence is necessary.
5. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6).
The Court must next consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity among
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct. Unfortunately,
as noted in the Sentencing Commission's report to Congress, disparity is rife nationwide with
respect to sentencing for this offense, and we do not believe that any sentencing Court has the
ability to fashion a sentence at the current moment that will avoid sentencing disparity with some
other sentencing Court. See Comm'n Report at Chapter Eight, generally.
6. 18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(7).
The Court next needs to determine if there are any victims in the case requiring
restitution. One victim has come forward seeking restitution, and we hope to have a restitution
agreement in place by the time of sentencing.
13
III. Conclusion,
Mr. Mule is a 26 year old man who committed a serious offense, but since his
commission of the offense, he has been able to refrain from possession of child pornography. He
has participated in and benefitted from mental health treatment since his release on bond, and has
been able to stop using marijuana. He works and contributes to his family's support, and has
done so for a number of years. As detailed in the letters from his family and friends, he is a good
man who committed a crime but is clearly worthy of a second chance. We therefore respectfully
request that the Court impose a sentence of supervision for a period of at least five years. We
believe that this will be a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals
of sentencing.
Respectfully submitted,
Mildred M. Whalen
Staff Attorney
(718) 330-1290
enc.
cc:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Ameet B. Kabrawala, Esq.

U.S. Probation Officer Victoria M. Aguilar
Mr. Daniel Mu18 (via email)
EC'F
14
Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 93
Daniel Mule
May 1, 2015
The Honorable Nicholas Garaufis
Senior Judge of the Eastern District of New York
United States Courthouse
Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Your Honor,
am writing in regards to my sentencing scheduled for May 19th, 2015. I truly never
imagined I would have to write this type of letter in my life but have made foolish decisions in my
past and today I am face to face with the consequences of my actions. I hope in this letter I can
express how much remorse, embarrassment and regret I have felt for years. I am ashamed by
my actions and while I cannot go back and undo the foolish decision I made, You can rest
assured nothing of the sort will ever happen again. I have plead guilty with your Honor recently
and have no excuse for what I did but I am fully responsible for my legal situation.
Being a first generation American my life has not always been easy. There have been
several times where I was making 100% of the income for my mother, sister and I. Since 12
years old I could not work but I did anything I could to provide for my family. Today, my mother
and sister have good jobs. As for myself, even with my current legal situation and House Arrest 1
have been able to find 2 different jobs and work full time all the while contributing most of my
income to now, support my mother and father. For a long time following 9/11 my father was
unemployed and had a difficult time bouncing back. I recently depleted my retirement fund to
support him as much as I could as well and buy my mother a used car after a recent car
accident left her car un-drivable.
have been asked a few times since my arrest, why I did what I did. The reason I did it
was because unfortunately that type of content, at the time was extremely easy to access.
accidentally stumbled upon a photograph while using a P2P service. I continued to stumble
upon photographs and eventually and regretfully began to actively seek it out myself. I realized
of course this was not normal behavior and wanted to find any treatment available. Being so
young however, I thought if I did a search for treatment online for my problem I would be flagged
and
I have a great support system in place and all of my

friends and family who know about my case have been supporting me as much as possible.
keep them all updated on the strides I have made in treatment and they have continued to
support me and want to see me do better. I also, want to do better and i have made a lot of
progress.
Your Honor, I hope you will consider letting me continue to better myself and consider
sentencing me to probation so I can continue to support my loved ones, finish school and further
my career. I am just beginning my life and am a driven and motivated person. I am treatable and
beg you to be merciful and grant me a second chance to continue the strides I have made in
treatment. I have been lucky enough to have a wonderful support system in place that want to
see me do better.
Sincerely,
Daniel Mule
Cristina Mule
Apri129, 2015
Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Dear Judge Garaufis,
My name is Cristina Mule andIam at present a site manager for a medical center. Iam writing
in regards to my brother Daniel Mule, a defendant in a case over which your honor is presiding.
Daniel is being charged with child pornography related offences. WhenIlearned of this newsI
could not begin to fathom this was my brother and believed immediately that some error had
been made.
In the 26 years thatIhave known my brother, Daniel has always put everyone before himself and
he is the most generous and selfless personIhave ever met. Anything anyone would ever ask of
him he would do without hesitation or complaint. During a period when my father became
unemployed and our finances were especially difficult, Daniel quickly found employment and
contributed nearly 100% of his pay to our family so we could make ends meet. He did this while
balancing a full college course load.
Daniel worked very diligently in both his employment and his college courses and earned a
recommendation from his professor to participate in a very prestigious internship in the New
York State Assembly in Albany, New York. Concluding this program he was offered a full time
position in the New York State Assembly. Daniel chose to return home and begin working again
to support our family financially while pushing towards finishing his bachelor's degree.
In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit Staten Island in a particularly devastating manner and
decimated many of the communities on the island. Fortunately, the area where Daniel and my
mother lived at the time was not affected. The a$ermath was extensive and people were without
food, water, electricity and basic assistance. Daniel assembled a volunteer group of his
colleagues and went where help was desperately needed. Over the course of 5 days, Daniel and
his crew worked often 10 or more hours daily assisting with moving and sorting through debris
and wreckage.
These are only a few example of my brother's caring, compassion and kind heartedness.Isay
this, not because he is my brother and best friend, but because he is truly most upstanding person
Ihave ever met. Please,Isupplicate your honor that Daniel be granted clemency during his
sentencing. My mother is currently dependent on him for financial support and will not be able
to survive on her income alone. Daniel's tenacity to overcome and surpass any obstacles in his
path will aid him in any rehabilitative programs that might be made available to him. Daniel will
undoubtedly comply with any and all stipulations issued by the court. Sending my brother to
prison will not serve to help him. He has such a bright and promising future ahead of him.I
thank you for the court's time and consideration in reading this letter.
Sincerely,
Cristina
Mule
Susana Rimada
May 1, 2015
Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201
My name is Susana Rimada, my Son is Daniel Mule will be standing in front of you soon
waiting for you to make a decision in his case. This is a very difficult time for me as my Son is
very important in my life emotionally, physically and financially.
My son was very young (12) when he took it upon himself to do what he could to help
me with the house expenses. I remember Danny running around the house collecting change
anywhere he could to buy boxes of candy so he could visit homes after school to sell his candy
for hours only to come home and give me all that he made that day keeping nothing for himself.
This speaks to the type of young man my son is.
Danny was always a humble person and in High School when his friends had name
brands and cell phones Danny did not think to ask for this from me. He knew it was outside of
our budget and like always, put his family's needs before his own. Danny is a remarkable young
man and has accomplished many things in his life. I can not imagine coming home from work
not finding him waiting for me, to be sure that I came home safe. I sometimes poke my head
into his room only to see him working on one of his many ideas or watching N. I can't help but
smile when I see him there. Emotionally, he is my support and does everything to make my life
easier everyday.
Last year Danny started counseling and I have noticed a big improvement in his stress.
He looks forward to attending his sessions every Saturday with his Counselor. Please allow my
son to help me as much as he can. He has worked so hard his whole life even with his current
situation he has continued working and has seen success in his new career. He has a great
vision of his future and I sometimes can't believe how smart and how motivated he is. If he goes
to prison his life will not be the same and I don't think my son will last in jail even if placed there
for a short while. From a mothers stand point it will be like losing my child. I miss him even when
he goes to sleep sometimes. My son and I are very close as you can probably imagine. We
laugh together and cry together. Please your honor, do not take him away from me. He has a
wonderful group of friends who support him. His friends, girlfriend, sister, father and I are here to
support him after this is all over as well. He wants to put this behind him and continue on with
his life. I beg you to allow my son to flourish in his life as much as he can. To date, he has been
very respectful to Pretrial and has obliged with all that they have asked of him for over a year
without complaint. Please find it in your heart to have mercy on my son and his mistakes.
Sincerely,
Susana Rimada
Silvano Mauricio Mule
April 29, 2015

Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201

am contacting you concerning my son Daniel Mule. A defendant in one of upcoming court
cases. I am contacting you, your honor because Daniel is a remarkable young man, with a
cheerful nature.
He was an intern to a New York State Assemblyman following which received a letter of
recommendation for his outstanding and creative work. While he was working at Sprint, a TMobile representative recruited him to work in their new store on Hylan Blvd, Staten Island
where he became a manager's assistant and was in charge of training new sales employees.
He achieved best sales person of the months many times, hence he was asked to train
salespeople in other location to improve their sales.
Since he was a child, his good nature and friendliness made him welcome at work, in school
and with friends. He was and is always ready to provide help to family, friend and strangers.
He volunteered to assist Hurricane Sandy victims, providing a helping hand and a smile where
needed, from bringing food and supplies to people in need to demolition and creating
barricades. I recall in the aftermath of the hurricane, we had to wait for hours to get gas for our
cars. During this time Daniel's car was running out of gas, he came to my house to borrow my
car to help the victims never stopping at any obstacle he faced to get back out to help the
victims of the hurricane.
Daniel is my son, I am proud to be his father. He is devoted to his family and friends, which has
earned the respect of so many people. Daniel is determined and focuses on his goals; he
managed to keep high grades in school while working full time. Daniel is a major financial
support for his mother. He is an outstanding citizen and sending him to prison will harm him and
our family more than it will help him. Thank you for taking the time to hear my thoughts on the
matter.
Sincerely,
Silvano Mauricio Mule
Deborah Fay Shatzkamer, LMSW
April 28, 2015

Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201
My name is Deborah Shatzkamer and I have known Daniel Mule for ten years. Of those ten years we
were engaged in a romantic partnership for five. Although we were involved in a partnership for half of
that lime I consider and have always considered Daniel a loyal and caring friend. Even after our split
both Daniel and I had established an extreme sense of respect and loyalty towards each other that
allowed us to remain friends. Such continued friendship can be argued is due to Daniel's incredible
character as a person. For if it was not for his kindness, generosity, strength of character, it would not
have been possible for our friendship to persevere after the end of our romantic partnership. In fact
the end of our relationship was mutual because we had grown such close friends. That is just a small
description of all that makes Daniel Mule a wonderful person.
Throughout all of the years that I have known Daniel I have known him to be a caring son, a loyal
brother, a devoted friend, a hard worker, and so much more. I cannot count the words in which I could
use to explain Daniel's character. Throughout this very trying experience Daniel has been able to
persevere by securing two jobs, pay down tuition to get back to school, contribute to household
expenses, and thrive during an extremely stressful and scary time. It would have been easy for him to
say "I'm on house arrest; there is nothing I can do but sit at home and hope for the best." Daniel
understood that although he was experiencing a great difficulty he still had responsibilifies, bills, and a
need to be a productive member of society to the extent possible with the restrictions he has had to
endure.
Over the course of our relationship Daniel has never failed to demonstrate his abilities, compassion,
drive, and overall quality of person. Daniel has always maintained a job in order to assist his mother to
pay expenses and support himself. During the time Daniel spent at Sprint and T-Mobile he had always
been one of the most ambitious employees, quickly becoming one of the top workers not only at his
location but in the whole of Staten Island. When Daniel accepted an internship for the NYS Assembly in
Albany, NY he received a 4.OGPA and was even asked to stay and work for the Assemblyman. Daniel
also spends a lot of time channeling his creative energy into creating an application for cell phones and
other technology, one of his interests.
a,>
In the days and weeks after Super Storm Sandy devastated countless homes and people, Daniel did not
hesitate to help how ever and wherever he could. Daniel has gone above and beyond for me, his
family, and members of my family whether it be driving long distances to retrieve lost belongings or
serving as a support in times of need. I can say with 100% confidence, if ever there was a day that
needed Daniel for anything he would be there in a heartbeat.
Contingent upon the severity of the court's ruling, Daniel is at risk for job loss which would result in the
end of his schooling, inability to assist his mother with household bills, inability to pay his own bills,
etc. Daniel's current and future relationships, opportunities with friends, family, housing opportunities
and employers may be strained based upon your ruling. These are only some of the concerns I have for
how this can negatively affect Daniel's life.
Daniel had a very difficult time with how people perceive him following the publication of several
articles in the Staten Island Advance. I have seen a sadness come over Daniel due to fear of public
perception and loss of relationships.
have never known Daniel to be anything less than a kind, generous, caring, and overall exceptional
person. I hope that the court will take this letter into consideration while coming to a decision. Please
know Daniel is young and treatable with counseling. When he was introduced tobhis current coubselor
he told me he was glad to finally talk to a counselor and is truly enjoying and embracing treatment with
Dr. Michael Ham. I know he would like to continue that treatment and a prison term would be
indredibly determental to his young life.
Yout Honor, I thank you for taking the time to read this letter and if any further information is needed
am happy to oblige. Please feel free to contact me at the phone number and address listed at the top of
this sincere letter.
Sincerely,
Deborah Fay Shatzkamer, LMSW
03May2015
Senior Judge of the Eastern district of New York
Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201
Iam contacting you about Daniel Mule, a defendant in one of your upcoming court cases.
Mr. Mule is facing a conviction of a felony.Iam reaching out to you because Danny has
not only been along-time friend of my family, and a most excellent companion to my
sister, but he is also an extraordinary man.
Imet Danny years ago when my sister began dating him. We met when he was kind
enough to join my family in celebrating the joyous occasion of my birthday. Mr. Mule
was a wonderful companion to my sister, andIcould not have thought of anyone elseI
would have wanted to see her with more. He is a loyal, caring, and trustworthy person
who always puts everyone else's needs before his own. Danny is a joyous person, always
smiling and maintaining the most positive of attitudes. WhereverIwent with Danny, he
seemed to know people everywhere, and everyone loved him.
In 2012 following the events of Super Storm Sandy, Mr. Mule worked long and
tirelessly. Danny volunteered to help clean up a disaster struck Staten Island from the
devastating storm. His actions provided relief and hope to families in their greatest time
of need. An excellent example of one of Mr. Mule's contributions to society.
Being a sailor in the United States Coast Guard there have been many times thatIhave
been away from home and missed my family and friends. Upon hearing of my return
from sea, Danny would no sooner get in the car and drive over approximately 250 miles
to New Hampshire to come greet and give me a warm welcome home, along with some
other of my family and friends. When he came to see me,I found it to be a very loving
gesture and considered him as another brother to me. Mr. Mule did this because he knew
how much being with family and friends meant to me.
The most important thing in Mr. Mule's life is, undoubtedly, his education and future
career. If found guilty, Daniel Mule would lose the potential of having a very positive
future. Employment would be made extremely difficult for Danny, with the convictions
he could be facing.
Danny is a very bright person studying political science in college. Due to his arrest and a
slanderous news article, Danny was suspended from his job at T-Mobile. This made it
difficult to keep up with his college tuitions. Charging Mr. Mule with a felony would
only worsen this situation. Danny has not been able to continue his education since last
April as a result of this hardship. However Daniel is currently working once again to
settle his school payments enabling him to resume his education, so that he may have a
bright career that he has worked so hard towards.
Upon graduating college as a political science major, Danny would have many open
doors to make positive changes and decisions; his knowledge and abilities would help
better his community and our country. It would be a shame for society to lose such a
bright and upstanding asset.
Being a service member, Mr. Mule, with knowledge of political sciences, is someoneI
and every other service member would need to help us get the support necessary to make
our jobs and lives as happy as possible, so that we can continue to defend our country
with pride.
Ihope you consider this information in regards to the charges Daniel Mule is facing.
Whatever the outcome of the trial,Iwant it to be known that Mr. Mule is an upstanding
citizen of this country.
Very respectfully,
Petty Officer Alex Shatzkamer

United States Coast Guard
April 28, 2015

1416 S
225 Cadman Plaza`East
NY 11201
Room
Brooklyn,
am contacting you about Daniel Mule', a defendant in one of your upcoming court cases. Mr. Mule'
is being charged with federal child pornography offences and he faces up to 20 years in prison. I'm
reaching out to you because Daniel has not only been along-time friend of our family but he also
quite an extraordinary young man.
Our family met Daniel about 8 years ago when he became a close friend of our daughter, Deborah. He
began dating her and we have considered him a member of our family. He was a frequent visitor to
our home and many occasions; he would be present at our home for family gatherings, going out to
dinner, visiting our friends and family, going on our family vacations with us, and serving as an usher at
the wedding of our older son Alex and our daughter-in-law Naomi. He has always helped our family
whether it was driving 2 hours to retrieve my forgotten wallet, containing my money and credit cards, as
well as my officer's badge and credentials (I am a refired federal immigration officer who has spent 25
years protecting our country and safeguarding it from both internal and external threats to national
security) and having been instrumental in the moving of my daughter from her apartment in Albany
back to Staten Island. In short whenever the need arose, this young man would always volunteer to
help us as well as other people with any help they may require.
Daniel is a child of a single parent household. We know his mom and she has also been a guest at our
home on many occasions. We have not met Daniel's dad but know that he loves him and assists him
financially. We know that Daniel in the past has worked very hard, balancing his education and
working full time. Both his mother and his father and sister have benetitted financially from his
grueling work hours. He is very devoted to his family's well being. We worry about his mom's
livelihood and lifestyle if he can no longer contribute financially to her.
pray that you consider this information in regards to the charges that Daniel is facing. Daniel in all
other aspects of his life is an outstanding young man with so much potential to fulfill in his lifetime.
During his tenure in Albany, he was an intern to a state assemblyman who approached him to work
there full time. Daniel, however wished to continue with school. Daniel is an outstanding citizen and
sending him to prison will harm more than it will help. Thank you for taking the time to hear my
thoughts on the matter.
Sincerely,
Mevin Mark Shatzkamer
Rebeka Shatzkamer
May 3, 2015

Room 1416 S
Brooklyn, NY 11201
am contacting you about Daniel Mule', a defendant in one of your upcoming court cases. Our family
met Daniel when he started dating our daughter Deborah about 7-8 years ago. He has been nothing but
sweet, honest, and I felt sure that I was able to trust him with the safety and well being of my daughter.
We were always able to depend on Daniel anytime we needed help and this part of his character didn't
only extend to us but also to others; his friends, his community, and his parents and sister.
He was always welcome in our home. He attended many of our family gatherings; he went with us on
vacations. Daniel was always ready to be helpful in any way possible; helping bring the groceries into
the house after shopping, and helping to shovel snow among other chores. He helped us move our
daughter to her apartment in Albany while she attended the State University at Albany, and once she
graduated from the University he helped us move her back from that apartment in Albany back to
Staten Island. In short whenever the need arose he was always ready to help.
We know his mom and she has also been a guest at our home on many occasions. On those occasions
had the opportunity to observe Daniel's behavior towards his mother. He was always, very caring and
respectful towards her. I was also pleased how well and respectfully he treated my daughter. We know
that Daniel worked and still works very hard, also he's eager to finish his education. He is very devoted
to his family's well being. He is the type of young man that realizes that his family depends a great deal
on his monitory contributions to the home in order to make ends meet, and he contributes gladly, he's
aware of his responsibilities and chooses his priorities with great care.
From the time I met Daniel to present time, I have developed a great affection &respect for him. He is
very bright, polite, thoughtful &selfless. In my opinion he is and will be a great asset to society in his
professional and personal life, i feel privileged to have met him and to consider him a friend of our
family.
hope and pray that you consider this information in regards to the charges that Daniel is facing. Daniel
in all other aspects of his life is a very good, considerate person. Daniel if given the opportunity will
continue with his studies and seek employment in the career of his choice. Daniel is an outstanding
person and sending him to prison will harm more than it will help. Thank you for taking the time to read
this letter on his behalf.
Sincerely,
Rebeka Shatzkamer
U.B. DtSTRiC7 COURT
~.Cf.N.Y,
* ~Qy ~ ~ 2~ *
BR40K~YN OFFfCE
TQ THE AONOItABLE JACB, WEINSTEIN

Senior United States District Judge
~~/~
~Y
'
~ ~~
Reference is made #a Your Honor s recent inquiry regarding information on the treatment and
supervision of offenders convicted of Possession of Child Pornography under supervision in the
Eastern District of New York (EI}NY). By way of background, the sex offender specific caseload
~ (~
was created in the Eastern District of hTew York, within the Supervision Division in November
v
1998, due t~ the increase of sex o#~ender registration laws and offenders convicted of sexual
r~
offenses entering the federal criminal justice system. Prior to the establishment of the sex offender
caseload, sex offenders were assigned to a mental health caseload, where the officer supervised
offenders with a myriad of mental'health disorders. The department created a second sex offender
specific caseload in 2001, to address the supervision. of sexual offenders on Long Island. Finally,
in 2003, the deparhnent created the .Sex Of~'ender Unit, which currently consists of a Supervisory
U.S. Probation Qf~icer, a Senior U.S. Probation Officer, two U.S. Frobation Qficers (one based in
our Brooklyn office end the other working out of the Central Fslip Courlhause), and the
department's CyberCrime Specialist. 'l~he unit is responsible for supervising all registered sexual
offenders convicted of a federal and/or military sex oi~ense, as well as those federal offenders who
have been convicted of a previous sex offense an the local level and lastly those offenders who
have a history or pattern of sexually deviant behavior. it is noted that aver the years, our
department has utilized the Containment Approach Model to supervise and treat convicted sex
offenders. This model, endorsed by the Administrative C3ffice of the Courts, American Probation
and Parole Association, and Alliance for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers {ATSA), requires a
collaborative approach wherein information is shared amongst. supervising officer, treatment
provider and polygraph examiner in an effort to establish the most effective treatment and
supervision plan.
The Sex Offender Unit is currently supervising 70 sexual offenders, S5 of which are registered sex
offenders in New York State. Of these ?0 offenders, 3fi were convicted of a childpornography
offense' (this includes possession, receipt, andlar transmission of child pornography images). Out
of the 3( child pornography offense convicted currently under supervision, 9 have admitted to prior
sexual contact of a minor through the use of clinical polygraph ancUar self report.{during the term
of supervision). We note that 4 out of the 36 child pornography o#~enders currently on supervision
have yet to undergo a sexual history ~lygraph due to their eazly stages of treatment, hence the
extent of their abuse remains unknown.
'Far the purposes of this memorandum, the. probation department has included only those
offenders convicted of a child pornography offense. We note that there are those occasions where
child pornography is traded. or found in connecfion with an investigation, although the offender
was not convicted of a child.pornography offense. Those cases were not included in this da#a.
2 The probation department utilizes the New York State Penal Law definition of sexual
contact. "Sexual contact' means any touching of the sexual or other :intimate parts of a persnn not
married to the actor for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire. of either party, It includes the
touching of the actor by :the victim, as well as the touching of the victim by the actor, whether
directly or through clothing..

~~s~ 1:0~-er-~~155 ~" ~.%',` C~c~~~rrt~n~ ~~ ~=I~d 1~./3~/20
~c~~ 2 c~~ 7 [~ag~~
#: 7C3~
The fallowing statistics were obtained from. the 36 child pornography offenders we are currently
supervising: 5 offenders are between the ages of 60-69 (2 have reported sexual contact with a
minor prior #o the term of supervision); 8 offenders are between the ages of 50-59 (2 have reported
sexual contact. with a minor prior to the term of supervision}; 9 offenders are between the ages of
40-49 (3 have reported sexual contact with a minor prior to the term of supervision); 9 offenders
are between the ages 30-39 {l .has repcrted sexual contact with a minor prior to the.term of
supervision}; and S offenders are between the ages of 2p-29 (l has. reported sexual contact with a
minor prior to the term of supervision).
Active convicted child. pornography offenders broken down by age and
prigt sexual contact ad m lesions either through clin(cal polygraph or self
report
no pr'w+sei 0d1~115slons
ge 2049 (S oife nders)
rye 304949 ofte nder5f
with D~~orsrx abuse admisslonz
aQe 40-49 (9 offenders)
age 5059 (s offe nd~n)
age 60-69 ~S of(e nders)
The probation department is currently supervising 3 offenders convicted ofa child pornography
offense who are under the age of 26. We currently have na females under sex offender specific..
supervision. It is interesting to note that to date, the department has only knowingly supervised 1
female who was convicted of a sex offense (she was eanvicted ~f Possession of Child Pornography
anti successfully completed her terns of release). The remaining 34 sex offenders currently under
our supervision have been convicted of a variety of sex offenses including, but not limited ta:
Coercion and Enticement; Rape; Sexual Abuse of a Minor; Sexual Abase of a Ward; Traveling
Interstate to Engage. in Sexual Activity with a Minor; Promoting Prostitution; and Failure to
Register as a Sex Offender.
Curren#sex offenders under

supervision of Eastern District of
.:New York.
Adive convicted child
pornography offenders
Qther sec offenses

'
~~~e 1:Q9~cr~00155m~E~UV E~~~~m~n~ ~9 ~i~~d 1~1~0/1a F~ c~~ 3 ~~,7 ~ac~ ~E~ ~ 7~3
Since 1999, the unit has supervised approximately 280 registered an~~ion-reg~st~re~
sex of~`enders,
iQ$ of which were convicted of a child pornography offense as previously defined. Approximately
20%o of the 10$ child pornography a#~enders supervised by this office disclosed.. a prior victim
(sexual contact. with a minor that occurred before the #erm of supervision which was never reported
to law enforcement or another treatment agency} either via clinical polygraph examination or self
report during the term of supervision. It is the policy of theprobation. department and treatment
provider to advise offenders that any such disclosure will nat be used against them for the pursuit
of ne~ criminal charges, so long as they do not provzde identifying information. As such, they are
encouraged to only repot# the age, gender, and details of the sexual contact in an effort #o gain the
offender's trust and :provide the basis for continued_honesty in treatment. Much to the credit of our
supervising officers and treatment providers, we have had only 1 known offender convicted of
child pornography offense who committed a new sexual contact offense while under the
supervision of this department, which we are aware of. This off'endcr admitted to current sexual
contact of a 9 year old female family member during a polygraph examination, The. information
was subseyuentiy confirmed through investigation by our department and the Suffolk County
Police Department. The offender, who was 36 years of age at the time of the new criminal
conduct, was .prosecuted by local authorities and had his supervision revoked in this district. He is
currently serving his second term of supervised release with our district.
~~.~-~~
~(O~p1'1C~151N'1Cj21" SU~'WSKk1Q~ ~S'~1"11~S'tl7~
~."IM~1'~C
non gildpanogaphy sic dfeiders under

dvvtd pprr~aphyoorxncted sac dferxi~s
{na se~cuai oa~tt adr~ission}
~ dt~d port'rogaPy' cornActedsec dfendas
( Nth se~u~t
ion}
an
28Q tda! offe rxie~s
Although ..only 1 known offender convicted of a child pornography offense under our supervision
has camumitted a new sexual contact o#~ense with a minor, it is imperative to point out that this
population has its share of non-eatnpliance. This is evident by the fact that out of the 108
offenders convicted of a child pornography offense, approximately 244 .instances of noncompliance or requests far modifications were reported to the Court since 1999. This number is
consistent with the probation department's belief in graduated sanctions and the fact that successful
sex offender supervision relies heavily on responding to all levels of non-ccampliance.
Furthermore, of the 108 offenders under our supervision convicted of a child pornography offense
since .1949, 14 had their supervision revoked (12.9'0) and 3 ofthe offenders had multiple terms of
supervision revpk~d.
1999-2010 Supervision revocations of offenders with child

pornography offenses
~^^,.~ ~~ -~fld pornograpty
with revolred
iab 12.%%
*far these 108

offenders,
ap~oximately 244
ir~tances of nvncomplfance or requests
#nr modifications w~er~
reported tothe Court
sir~c~ 1999.
As mentioned above, since the inception of the sex offender specific caseload, the probation
deparhnent has utilized the Containment Approach in ail effort to minimize risk to the community,
white providing treatment to the offender. "This approach rests an the dual premise that sex
offenders are one hundred percent responsible for the damage they inflict on others and that they...
must constantly and consistently ~e held accountable for their inappropriate thoughts, feeling, and
illegal actions." {English, Pullen, Jones, & Krauth, 1996). The three central components of the
.Containment Approach are as follows: 1}Internal Control -control over inappropriate sexual
impulses, feelings, and behaviors through offense specific treahnent and a variety of psychoeducatianal and behavior modification techniques; 2) External. Control -provided by the criminal
justice system through the use or threatened use of sancrions to ensure compliance with the
conditions of supervision; 3} Clinical Polygraph Examinations -used as a monitoring tool to
combat the oi~'ender's reluctance to disclose the information necessary for effective monitoring..
The goal of the polygraph exam is not for the offender to fail, but rather pass, meaning proper
disclosure was made.. {English, Pullen, Jones, & Krauth, 1996) This in turn will increase. the
likelihood that the appropriate treatment and supervision plan wild be developed and implemented.
Offenders enrolled in sex offender specific treatment through our department are :required to
undergo a sexual history polygraph examination no later then 4 months a$er the commencement of
treatment. This examination is followed by maintenance examinations to ensure honesty in
treatment and ctampliance with the conditions of supervision. These examinations are usually
given to an offender every 6 m~~~ths during the term of supervision.
Officers are selected for the unit on a competitive basis. Emphasis is placed on field work, desire
and emotional ability to work with this unique population and familiarization with the Containment
Approach.. The .unit receives extensive on the job. training conducted by the supervisor and senior
officer. Additionally, officers routinely attend training in the field of sex offender treatment and
supervision. Over the years officershave attended national training with the Alliance for the
Treatment of Sexual Abusers (ATSA}, the New York State. Alliance far the Treatment of Sexual
Abusers {NYATSA), Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
Tracking (SMART) Office, as well training with the Adnninistration for Child Services (ACS),
Coalition Against Child Abuse and Neglect {CCAN}, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI}. Officers are current members of the EDt~TY Sex Qffender Task Force, which provides a
forum for inter-agency collaboration. Finally, several officers have been recognized both internally
and externally far their work with sex offenders, Specifically, 3 officers have been honored with..

~~s~ ~:~~- r- 0 5-.~ ~Ctf C)
e~,`~ ~~ died ~.1f f1 ~~ e 5 f~~~c ~;~ ~:
the dist~nguisi"~aznpion for ~~ii~~t~en award present~ye Paents ~ar Megn saw.705
In 2004, the probation department solicited vendors far sex. offender treatment through the Metro
Newspaper and F'edbiz-ops, The. only response to New York City solicitation came from New
York Forensic. On Long Island, the probation department received responses from both New York
Forensic (Great Neck office} and First Light Fsychological Services {Farmingdale). As such,
contracts were awarded to New dark Forensic {both Brooklyn and Long Island} and First Light
Psychological Services (Farmingdale).
New York Forensic has been working with the probation department and our sex offender
population for the last ten years and currently treats the bulk of our sexual offenders. New York
Forensic offers a wide variety of mental health services. Therapists are well equipped to treat
mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, while also addressing an offender's deviant
sexual behavior. Individual sessions can be increased or dedicated solely to addressing an
underlying mental health issue or illness before delving into the. criminal sexual behavior.
Psychapharmacolagic treatment is also available and .can b~ instituted as part of an individual's
treatment program.
New dark Forensic is .currently treating 42 sex offenders under the supervision of the EDNY, It is
noted that New York :Forensic siso treats sexual offenders referred from the Southern District of
New York, in addition to lace} community correctional agencies, such as the.New York City
Probation 17epartrnent. Of our 42 offenders, 34 were convicted of a child pornography afFense.
These offenders are required to attend bfl~h weekly group and individual treatment sessions.
Currently, there are 5 sex offender specific groups being run by New York rorensic on a weekly
basis. Ac;carding to New York Forensic, their Sex Offender Treatment Yro~~ram ineludea
individual therapy and,psycho-educational groups which siress,personal responsibility and focus on
increasing self-awareness, developing self-control, facilitating victim empathy and relapse
prevention. Consistent with the "containment approach model, New York Forensic believes that
it is essential that the treating clinician, referring party, .probation officer and the. Court remain in
regalar contact in order to promote cptimal client attendance and compliance with treatment.
Clinical polygraph is used on an intermittent basis throughout the course of treatment to assist the
patient and clinician in formulating and instituting a treatment plan that reflects the reality of each
patient's paftern of offending behavior.
Program coordinator, Jennifer Mc~arthy, Ph.D., advises that there are currently 5 staff members
assigned to sex offender specific therapy {2 males therapists and 3 female therapists). 4 out of 5 of
these therapists currently have their Ph.D. 111 PSyGI1flI0~, while the 5"' member is in the process of
obtaining same. Therapists consistently meet with the program.coordinator to discus specific
cases. Both the.. probation department and program coordinator encourage therapists to attend
training and continue their development in the field of sex offender treatment. According. to Dr.
McCarthy, there is currently no ireatrnent regiment dedicated specifically to the child pornography
offender. Thus, this particular #ype of offender participates in sex. offender specific treatment, with
emphasis. placed on the details of the instant a~ense and the offender's sexual experiences and
background. As such, treatment is individualized to meet the cognitive and emotional needs of the
offender. Risk factors are discussed in treatment and relayed to the supervising officer and
polygraph examiner in an effort to modify behavior and identify triggers. All offenders entering
the program are assessed to ensure they possess the cognitive skills and maturity to participate in a
sex offender group.
Dr. McCarthy. stales that several studies were presented at this year's national ATSA conference on
the topic of child pornography offenders and recidivism rates. One such study due to be published
by the end of the year, suggest "anywhere beiween 0% and. 50% of child pornography offenders
report a history of having sexual contact with minors. Despite. this, however, we .cannot assume

~~~ ~.E.6~`lJ[~~~.d, ~.}~"~~~3 V~(
~i.66e t.d!!@~EtC ~~
5Bf~~ ~~fa~~1..Fa13
'~L C~ ~~ ~ ~f.6~1.~~ ~1 ~`f
that these ai~enders w~11 engage in sexual contact with minors in the tore as the research 1n t ~s
area. informs that child ~rnography offenders, as a group, are low risis, to recidiVate with a contact
offense." (Eke, Seto, &Williams, ingress) She further advises that same variables have been
found to be predictive of contact sexual recidivism. These include age at first offense (i.e the
younger the offender, the higher risk), criminal history, failure of conditional release, lower
education, being single, using non-Internet child pornography, involvement with minors on-line,
and indiscriminate sexual behavior involving adults (possibly indicative of intimacy deficits).
In closing, the probation department believes that successful supervision of a sex offender requires
constant interaction between officer, therapist, and polygraph examiner. It is this collaboration
coupled with an offender's wiliingaess to be honest in treatment that leads to rehabilitation and a
successful term of supervision. Over the years we have been able to effectively implement this
belief. The current issue plaguing sex offender treatment and supervision is the lack of "intensive"
ar "inpatient" therapy available to offenders with significant or recurring sexually .deviant thoughts
and behaviors. The probation department continues to iry and find programs available to assist this
small population, but. currently are only aware of the Bureau of Prisons residential sex offender
treatment programs.
If Your Honor has any further questions, 1 am available to discuss sex offender. supervision at
anytime.
RESFECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
EILEEN KELLY
CHIEF U,S. PROBATIpN OFFICER
PREFARED BY: ~~ ~I_

Lawrence M. Andres, Jr.
:Supervisory U.S. Probation Officer
;7l $-$04-2766
cc: The Honorable Raymond J. Dearie, Chief U.S. District Jucige
Eileen Kelly, Chief U.S., Probation Officer

~~~~ ~.C~~-~~-Q0~55-J~~IV C~t~~~Iti~~~ 9~ ~i~~d 1~/Q/~Q ~~g~ 7 Q~ 7 F~~g~IC) #: 7~~
REFERENCES
English, K., Pullen, S., Janes, L., and K~auth, B. (199fi). A Model Process: A Containmen#
Approach. In K. English, S. Pullen and L. Jones (Eds.), Managing Adult Sex Offenders (pp. 2-1Q,
2-11}. Lexington, KY: American Probation and Parole Association.
Eke, A., Seto, M., Williams, J., (in press). Assessing the Risk Posed by Child Pornography
Offenders.

Daniel Mule Defense Memo

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Daniel Mule Defense Memo

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 79

OF NEW YORK, INC.

July 10, 2015

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 80

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 81

B. The history and characteristics of Mr. Mule.

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 82

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 83

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 84

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 85

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 86

D. A sentence to provide needed educational, vocational, or medical

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 87

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 88

Specific Offense Characteristic

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 89

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 90

R. Revisiting Mr. Mule's guideline calculations based on the

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 91

As a result, using the guidelines as a reference point for anon-guideline sentence, we

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24 Filed 07/10/15 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 92

Assistant U.S. Attorney Ameet B. Kabrawala, Esq.

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 93

I have a great support system in place and all of my

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 94

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 95

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 96

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 97

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 98

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 99

Silvano Mauricio Mule

April 29, 2015

Dear Judge Garaufis,

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 100

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 101

Deborah Fay Shatzkamer, LMSW

April 28, 2015

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 102

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 103

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 104

Petty Officer Alex Shatzkamer

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 105

April 28, 2015

The Honorable Nicholas Garaufis

Dear Judge Garaufis,

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 106

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 107

The Honorable Nicholas Garaufis

Dear Judge Garaufis,

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-1 Filed 07/10/15 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 108

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-2 Filed 07/10/15 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 109

U.B. DtSTRiC7 COURT

TQ THE AONOItABLE JACB, WEINSTEIN

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-2 Filed 07/10/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 110

~c~~ 2 c~~ 7 [~ag~~

ge 2049 (S oife nders)

rye 304949 ofte nder5f

with D~~orsrx abuse admisslonz

aQe 40-49 (9 offenders)

age 5059 (s offe nd~n)

age 60-69 ~S of(e nders)

Curren#sex offenders under

Case 1:14-cr-00269-NGG Document 24-2 Filed 07/10/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 111

~c 2 c 7 [~ag~~