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

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

Sentencing: October 9, 2015

Defendant

*
DEFENDANTS 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 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 103

The parties agree that Mr. Ramas 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. Ramas 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 2000s 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

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

Case 1:15-cr-00143-GBL Document 19 Filed 10/05/15 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 104

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. Ramas
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.

Case 1:15-cr-00143-GBL Document 19 Filed 10/05/15 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 105

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. Ramas 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 defendants 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

Case 1:15-cr-00143-GBL Document 19 Filed 10/05/15 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 106

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 an
individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings
that 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.

Case 1:15-cr-00143-GBL Document 19 Filed 10/05/15 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 107

Respectfully submitted:

_________/s/___________________
Joseph A. Malouf, Esq., VSB 31839
244 Main Street, 3rd Floor
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
(301) 947-8998
Joseph@attorneymalouf.com
_________/s/___________________
William C. Brennan, Jr., Esq.
(Entered pro hac vice)
6305 Ivy Lane, Suite 700
Greenbelt, MD 20770
(301) 474-0044
WBrennan@bsm-legal.com
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.