Sentencing Memos For Beena Patel

Case: 1:17-cr-00297 Document #: 141 Filed: 11/27/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1387
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
v. ) No. 17-CR-297
)
) Judge Sara L. Ellis
BEENA PATEL. )
DEFENDANT BEENA PATEL’S SENTENCING POSITION PAPER
NOW COMES the Defendant, BEENA PATEL, by and through her attorneys, ANGELINI,
ORI + ABATE LAW, and in support of her Sentencing Position Paper, states as follows:
I. Introduction
On April 26, 2019, the defendant, Beena Patel, was convicted after a trial by a jury of three
counts of perjury. In Count One, Beena Patel was convicted of lying to the grand jury about
whether she either (a) knew whether Sivasubrami Rajaram (“Rajaram”) had spoken to law
enforcement, (b) that Rajaram had testified before the grand jury or (c) that Beena Patel had spoken
to Rajaram after he received a Grand Jury subpoena. As in every Count, the jury was not required
to convict Beena Patel of all of the alleged false statements in each count. A unanimous decision
on any perjured statement was sufficient. In Count Two, Beena Patel was convicted of lying to
the grand jury about whether she had sold tickets for Friends of Dorothy Brown fundraisers or that
Beena Patel knew that other employees of the Cook County Clerk’s office sold tickets to and
collected money for the fundraisers. In Count Three, Beena Patel was convicted of lying to the
grand jury about whether she asked Dorothy Brown’s Chief of Staff to help an individual obtain a
promotion or whether Beena Patel knew that this individual had received a “merit raise.”
II. Corrections in the PSR
The defendant, Beena Patel, commends the complete and thorough examination of her life,
the crime she committed, her potential sentence and the sentencing recommendation that was given
by United States Probation Officer, Rebecca Fowlie. There are a few minor corrections to the Pre-
Sentence Report that Beena Patel would like to offer, none of which are material to her sentence.
Page 6 paragraph 11 There is an indication that Mr. Rajaram was convicted of perjury,
where in fact he actually pleaded guilty to the charge of perjury and was sentenced to probation
for his crimes.
Page 6 paragraph 12 In the sentence, “Upon Dorothy Brown’s arrival, the defendant
asked for a position with the Clerk’s office and Ms. Brown reportedly….”, it implies that Beena
Patel asked for the position.
The sentence should read, Upon Dorothy Brown’s arrival, Mr. Rajaram asked for a
position with the Clerk’s office and Ms. Brown reportedly….”
Page 7 paragraph 14 The sentence reads, “….Pinal Patel’s (Individual D) brother paid
a bribe in exchange for Pinal Patel’s promotion….” It should read “….Pinal Patel’s (Individual
D) brother paid a bribe in exchange for Pinal Patel’s brother’s wife’s promotion….”
Page 11 paragraph 55 There is a misspelling. The city in India, “Dalod” should be

“Talod.”
III. Objections to the Offense Level Computation in the PSR
Primarily, the United States Probation Department’s Offense Level Computation was
addressed in the PSR in pages 8 through 10.
A. Base Offense Level (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623 (a) 14
The Defendant agrees with the Base Offense Level of 14.
B. Specific Offense Characteristics
(Substantial Interference Enhancement under USSG Sec. 2J1.3(b)(2)) 3

The Defendant disagrees with the three (3) level enhancement for the “substantial
interference with the administration of justice.”
Primarily, the Defendant, Beena Patel, is in no way attempting to minimize her perjured
testimony or the effect of that perjured testimony. The crime of perjury is a serious Class D felony.
In this section, Beena Patel is merely setting forth that there is no stated factual basis in either
the Government’s Version of the Offense or information provided by the investigating agencies, to
support the conclusion that the specific crimes for which Beena Patel was convicted resulted in a
“substantial interference with the administration of justice.”
The United States Probation Department has determined that Beena Patel’s false statements
before the Grand Jury resulted in a “substantial interference with the administration of justice.”
According to the Pre-Sentence Report, Beena Patel’s lies “affected the government’s ability to file
charges against Dorothy Brown.” In that vein, according to the PSR, a three (3) level enhancement
applies under USSG Sec. 2J1.3(b)(2). From a reading of the PSR, it appears that the probation
officer found her support for the conclusion that Beena Patel’s conduct “affected the government’s
ability to file charges against Dorothy Brown” from the Government’s Version of the Offense and
information provided by Agent Harris,
“….The government opined that her testimony was “so misleading and had contradicted
herself in so many respects that it was difficult for the Grand Jury to credit anything she said.
Agent Harris advised that the defendant and Mr. Rajaram’s lies before the Grand Jury and
convictions for such prevented the FBI from moving forward with their investigation of Dorothy
Brown.”
In its Version of the Offense, the Government opined that because Beena Patel’s perjury,
“…resulted in substantial interference with the administration of justice (the government’s ability
to prosecute Dorothy Brown for acceptance (sic) a $15,000.00 bribe paid by Rajaram), the offense
is subject to an increase of 3 levels.”

While the opinions within the Government’s Version of the Offense and the information
provided by Agent Harris are consistent, they are both conclusory as to what effect Beena Patel’s
testimony had upon the Government’s ability to indict Dorothy Brown. Ironically, as an
attachment to their Version of the Offense, the Government provided the factual basis of the type
of information that could have brought about an indictment of Dorothy Brown, when it attached
the proffered statement of Sivasubrami Rajaram (taken on November 14, 2015). In that statement,
Rajaram provided a detailed description of the “bribe” and his payments to Dorothy Brown.
Through this proffered statement, the Government provides a factually detailed account of the
$15,000.00 “bribe.” According to Rajaram, while he was signing for promissory notes with
Dorothy Brown, Rajaram’s understanding was that he was providing the money to obtain a job.
Rajaram felt that he would not obtain employment without paying the money.
It is for the Government to prove at sentencing that Beena Patel’s perjured Grand Jury
testimony had a “substantial effect” in making Sivasubrami Rajaram’s proffer or his prospective
testimony against Dorothy Brown less credible than it would have been but for defendant’s
perjured testimony. For example, how did the Government’s job become substantially more
difficult in indicting and eventually convicting Dorothy Brown if Beena Patel lied to the grand
jury about whether she knew whether Sivasubrami Rajaram had spoken to law enforcement (Count
One)? Or about Beena’s knowledge as to whether Sivasubrami Rajaram had testified before the
grand jury (Count One)?
Similarly in Count Two, there is no stated nexus between Beena Patel’s conviction for lying
to the grand jury about whether she had sold tickets for Friends of Dorothy Brown fundraisers and
the Government’s inability indict and eventually convict Dorothy Brown. In all candor, there has
been no showing that having Beena Patel sell fundraising tickets for Friends of Dorothy Brown is
even an indictable offense. Again, Beena Patel is not minimizing her lies or the significance of
the lies; she is merely questioning the causal effect of whether those lies substantially made it more
difficult for the Government to indict Dorothy Brown, especially in light of the fact that Rajaram
seemed to be more than willing to offer damaging testimony against Dorothy regarding his own
payments to Brown.
In Count Three, Beena Patel was convicted of lying to the grand jury about whether she
asked Dorothy Brown’s Chief of Staff to help an individual obtain a promotion and whether Beena
Patel knew that this individual had received a “merit raise.” Again, in neither the Government’s
Version of the Offense nor in Agent Harris’ summation to the United States Probation Department,
is there a stated nexus between Beena Patel’s perjured testimony and any indictable act, which
could have been pleaded against Dorothy Brown relating to this perjured testimony.
C. Multiple Count Adjustment (Section USSG Sec. 3D1.4) 2
The Defendant disagrees that a Multiple Count Adjustment is proper in this case.
The United States Probation Officer details her support for the application of a USSG Sec.
3D1.4 Multiple Count Adjustment in paragraphs 23 and 24 on page 8 of the Pre-Sentence Report:
“….23. Counts 1 and 2 are grouped for guideline calculation purposes because they
involve the same victim and two or more transactions connected by a common criminal objective
or constituting part of a common scheme or plan. USSG Sec. 3D1.2;
24. It is noted that Count 3 is not grouped with Counts 1 and 2 because in cases
involving perjury arising from testimony given in separate proceedings, the counts are not grouped.
USSG Se.2J1.3(d)(1). The false statements involved in Counts 1 and 2 occurred at the same Grand
Jury session on October 15, 2015, whereas the false statements involved in Count 3 occurred at a
different Grand Jury session on July 14, 2016.”
According to the above analysis, merely because Beena Patel’s perjured testimony before
the grand jury occurred on separate dates, a Multiple Count enhancement under USSG Sec.
3D1.4(a), (b) and (c) is warranted.

Primarily, the United States Probation mistakenly applied USSG Sec. 2J1.3(d)(1), which
states:
“….(d) Special Instruction
(1) In the case of counts of perjury or subornation of perjury arising from

testimony given, or to be given in separate proceedings, do not group the counts together under
Sec. 3D1.2 (Groups of Closely Related Counts).
The United States Probation office determined that Beena Patel’s testimony to the same
grand jury on the same case, sitting on different dates, constituted “separate proceedings” under
USSG Sec. 2J1.3(d)(1). The Application Notes to USSG Sec. 2J1.3, however, specifically define
“separate proceedings”:
“…Separate proceedings, as used in subsection (d)(1), includes different proceedings in

the same case or matter (e.g. a grand jury proceeding and a trial, or a trial and retrial) and
proceedings in separate cases or matters (e.g. separate trials of codefendants) but does not include
multiple grand jury proceedings in the same case.”
Count III should not be grouped separately from Counts I and II, and the 3D1.4 Multiple
Count Adjustment is improper in this particular instance.
D. Offense Level Computation
The Defendant asserts that the Adjusted Offense Level of fourteen (14) is proper, because:
(a) there is no stated factual basis for a “substantial interference with the administration of justice”
enhancement under USSG Sec. 2J1.3(b)(2) and (b) a multiple count adjustment is not proper under
USSG Sec. 2J1.3(d)(1) or USSG Sec. 3D1.4.
The resulting Guideline Range at an Adjusted Offense Level of fourteen (14) is 15-21
months.
IV. A sentence of probation is an option that is available to the Court
Statutorily:
Because the offense in question is a Class D felony, under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3561(c)(1), the
defendant is eligible for not less than one (1) year but not more than five (5) years of probation as
an option on each count. One of the following must be imposed as a condition of probation unless
extraordinary circumstances exist: a fine, restitution or community service.
Guidelines:
Whether the Adjusted Offense Level falls within the Government’s suggested offense level
(17), the Defendant’s suggested offense level (14) or the United States Probation Officer’s
suggested offense level (19), all of the levels fall within Zone D. For the purpose of a purely
advisory guideline calculation, probation would not be available.
V. A sentence of three (3) years of probation is an appropriate sentence in this case.
If the court were inclined to sentence Beena Patel to a non-custodial sentence of probation
for any length of time, the court would have to find that a sentence below the advisory guideline
range is an appropriate sentence.
Under §3553(a), the district court’s mandate is to impose “a sentence sufficient, but not
greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes” laid out in that statute. To ascertain such a
sentence, the courts are directed to consider certain relevant factors, including (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense, (2) the history and characteristic of the offender, (3) the need to
provide the defendant with needed medical care in the most effective manner, (4) the need to
provide just punishment for the offense, (5) the need to afford adequate deterrence, and (6) the
need to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). The court
must assess defendant’s personal characteristics aside from the offense conduct. 18 U.S.C.
§3553(a)(1).
(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the need to provide just
punishment for the offense
Perjury is a Class D felony, and it is a serious offense. It is an offense, however, that, at
least statutorily, contemplates that a sentence of probation may be available for the crime(s)
committed. Beena Patel is fearful that at least from a review of the Government’s Version of the
Offense, that her sentencing hearing from the Governments’ perspective could turn into a comment
on public corruption. Beena Patel broke her oath to tell the truth before a grand jury. That oath is
identical to an oath that would have been given to her whether she was a public servant or not.
While there was not a single jury instruction, which was submitted to the jury, that referenced
whether Beena Patel was a public servant, an assistant circuit court clerk or a friend of Dorothy
Brown, Beena Patel appreciates and understands the Government’s position that her lies could
have seriously affected an investigation into public corruption. And while that is a reality for
Beena Patel, she continues to believe and assert that a period of incarceration would be greater
than necessary to carry out the directives of 18 USC Sec. 3553(a).
Although it is necessary for the court to provide the appropriate message to the public at
large about the sacred aspect of the oath to tell the truth, it is also important to recognize that the
court is sentencing a person. As described below, Beena Patel’s background, advanced age,
community work, and family situation all mitigate strongly in favor of the Court imposing a
probationary sentence that, while still recognizing the seriousness of the overall offense, will
appropriately account for those other important factors.
With or without receiving a sentence that includes a period of incarceration, the seriousness
of this offense is particularly destructive for Beena Patel, because the felony conviction will
undoubtedly affect Beena Patel’s ability to realize her pension. This is a debilitating circumstance
of the crime for which Beena was convicted.

One of the great benefits of working almost thirty (30) years in the same clerk’s office is
that Beena Patel could enjoy the fruits of the pension that she paid into for almost thirty (30) years,
and began to realize on her retirement on August 31, 2016. As a fifty-eight (58) year old female,
Beena Patel has the natural life expectancy of an additional 26.8 years. If Beena Patel reached her
natural life expectancy, Beena’s pension would have realized over two million ($2,000,000.00)
dollars over her natural lifetime.
On September 30, 2019, Beena Patel received a notice from the Cook County Pension
Fund, that due to her conviction under Counts I, II and III (all felonies), the County’s Retirement
Board would be holding a hearing to determine whether the facts that gave rise to Beena Patel’s
felony convictions related to Beena’s service with Cook County. The hearing was set for
November 7, 2019. Over the past several weeks, attorney Donald J. Angelini, Jr. has been in
contact with Margaret M. Fahrenbach, Esq. the attorney for the Cook County Pension Fund. It
was agreed that since this was an issue that did not require an evidentiary hearing (Beena’s pension
was being suspended and eventually revoked due to a conviction), Beena Patel would submit her
position in writing to be presented before the Cook County Pension Fund Board. (See attached as
Exhibit “A”)
The statutory language, which adjudicates Beena Patel’s rights to her pension, is found in
the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/9-235:
“…. Felony Conviction. None of the benefits provided in the Article shall be paid to any
person who is convicted of any felony relating to or arising out of or in connection with his
service as an employee.”
The language, “relating to or arising out of or in connection with his service as an
employee” is broad and potentially devastating to any attempt that Beena Patel would have in
saving her pension. According to Ms. Fahrenbach, it will be the position of the Pension Board
that the convictions “related or arose out” of Beena Patel’s employment and that Beena’s pension
is suspended following November 7, 2019, no matter what Ms. Patel or her attorneys present by
way of legal argument. Beena Patel’s last $7,287.00 monthly pension benefit was paid on
November 1, 2019. While this financial loss is a collateral loss for the crime which Beena Patel
committed, there is no question that Beena Patel has and will continue to suffer from the
consequences of her actions in submitting false testimony to a grand jury, with or without serving
a period of incarceration.
(2) The history and characteristics of the defendant
Beena Patel was born in 1961 in Talod, Gujarat, India to Ashabhai and Sumitra Patel.
Beena’s father died when she was just six (6) years old. Beena was one of six (6) children, four
(4) of which, including herself, are alive. She maintains a good relationship with each one of her
siblings. Beena was primarily raised by her mother, living in Ahmedabad, India, until she was
five (5) years old, and then living in Nar, India, until she was eighteen (18) years old. Beena and
her mother were financially supported by Beena’s uncles growing up.
As stated in the Pre-Sentence Report, Beena’s faith has always been very prominent in her
life. During her childhood, approximately twenty women would visit Beena’s home every night
for a religious meeting and reading. Beena would perform devotional songs on religious holidays
for this group. Beena’s mother played a vital role in her spiritual and religious upbringing.
Currently, Beena visits her temple on Sundays and serves in its cafeteria as a way of giving back
to her community.
Education was also very important to Beena. She diligently studied in order to be the top
student in her class and received the charitable fund for girls in her school. When Beena was
awarded money for being at the top of her class, she gave the earnings to her mother. Beena
graduated first in her class at Nar High School. Beena attended a nearby college, Nadiad
Commerce College, and lived with her maternal uncle for the duration of her college education.
Beena transferred from this college after one year, and then attended Navgujarat College where
she received her bachelor’s degree in commerce, accounting, and auditing. Beena has always
worked hard for her family and volunteered continuously for her community. Even at a young age,
Beena helped elderly women in her community, for which she received payments in fruits.
Following college, Beena Patel worked within the banking system.
Beena married her husband, Dixit Patel, an arranged marriage, on February 23, 1984 in
Ahmedabad, India. They lived many months apart, until Beena obtained a Visa and reunited with
her husband in Chicago, Illinois, approximately fifteen (15) months after their marriage. While
Beena and her husband were part of an arranged marriage, Dixit Patel is the love of Beena’s life.
Dixit Patel has shown Beena Patel constant support and love throughout this criminal process.
Once Beena arrived in the United States, she continued her education by enrolling in
classes at Truman College. While in school, she also worked as a typing lab instructor. More
recently, Beena completed an online course about the foundations of being a teacher.
Beena is a mother.
For the first fifty-five (55) years of her life, Beena Patel had never been arrested or accused
of any crime. Beena Patel has always maintained full-time employment, and has always worked
to provide for her family. Beena Patel has worked to support herself, her husband, their son, her
in-laws and until recently, her mother (now deceased) in her home at 6246 North Leona Avenue,
Chicago, Illinois 60646. While many individuals have either cared for or provided a home for (a)
their in-laws or (b) their own parents for extended periods of time, few have provided a home for
both.
For over 20 years, Beena was providing a home and constant support for both her mother,
and her in-laws, who are both over the age of 80. If Beena is incarcerated, it would provide a
substantial burden for the Patel family in attempting to provide care for Beena’s in-laws who have
historically heavily relied upon Beena for their care, financial support and treatment. Not only has
Beena cared for her own family and her husband’s family, but countless letters speak to Beena’s
contributions to her friend’s parents when they were in poor health.
Beena Patel, having become discontent with retirement, is currently working at Best Brains
Buffalo Grove, which is an after school learning center. Best Brains Buffalo Grove helps students
achieve better grades through building their confidence. Beena has dedicated much of her time to
Best Brains Buffalo Grove, and has made numerous friendships there.
Beena is a prevalent force in the Indian community, especially with those who emigrated
from the region of Gurat, India. Throughout the years, Beena has worked with countless
organizations and held positions on many boards. Some of the volunteer work she has undertaken
is through the Metropolitan Asian Family Services (MAFS), Association of Indian Americans
(AIA), the Gujarati Samaj, BAPS, Freedom from Hunger.
It is typical for the court to receive letters of character from the friends and family in
relation to the sentencing of any defendant. In this case, the Defendant is submitting thirty-seven
(37) letters from her family members and friends. In a very real manner, the defendant is described
as the matriarch and guidance of a great family. She is looked upon as a “mother figure” and a
leader to everyone within her community. There are a number of letters and newspaper clippings
that illustrate the community work that defendant has engaged in over the years. The
aforementioned letters and newspaper clippings are attached as Exhibit “B” and Exhibit “C”,
respectively. Beena’s acts of kindness in the community are boundless.
A highlight of some of the letters of character are as follows:
Dixit Patel
Dixit Patel is Beena’s husband of 34 years. He describes Beena’s upbringing and her hard work to
accomplish her education, and then describes her promotions through the Clerk of the Circuit
Court. Mr. Patel describes Beena as her mother and his parents’ life lines. Mr. Patel cannot
remember a single person that Beena has declined to help. He is proud of his wife for taking pride
and satisfaction in helping and making a difference in someone’s life.
Ashish D. Patel
Ashish Patel is Beena’s son. He states that his mother has done her best to ensure that anyone in
their community stayed out of hardship and poverty. She uses her privilege to help others. Beena
has been a supportive and positive influence throughout her son’s life. Beena’s son says that his
mother has never been one to ignore responsibilities, and is more than willing to face the
consequences of her actions. Finally, Beena’s son believes his mother will leave a lasting impact
on the world for good and that whatever lies ahead of her will motivate her to be a moral and
supportive person.
Ghanshyam N. Pandey, Ph.D.
Dr. Ghanshyam N. Pandey is the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Association of Indians
in America (AIA), Illinois Chapter. Dr. Pandey describes Beena’s involvement in AIA as the Vice
President and President, and stated that Beena brought a lot of energy and assets to the
organization. Dr. Pandey described Beena as a pleasant person who is committed to volunteer for
the community, and would offer to help with any personal need.
Jitendra Punjabi
Jitendra Punjabi is a retired Cook County employee. He describes Beena taking care of three (3)
senior citizens within her home, even while going through a difficult time of her own. Mr. Punjabi
further describes Beena as a warmhearted and genuine leader and volunteer.
Sowmya Sounderrajan
Sowmya Sounderrajan is one of Beena’s coworkers at Best Brains Learning Center. She describes
Beena as dependable, calm, and collected, even under stressful situations.
Sonal Patel, M.D.
Doctor Sonal Patel has known Beena for over 20 years in many different capacities. Dr. Patel
describes Beena as someone who provides great humanitarian services with a pleasant and friendly
personality and positive attitude. Dr. Patel further describes Beena as someone who takes pride in
helping people in need and whose only reward she receives is the satisfaction that she receives
from putting a smile on people’s faces. Dr. Patel speaks about all of the senior citizens that Beena
has helped, including Dr. Patel’s father-in-law, and especially Beena’s own mother and her in-
laws. Finally, Dr. Patel describes Beena as a loyal employee and someone who gives 100% when
she is given any responsibility.
Neelam Ganger
Neelam Ganger has been friends with Beena for the last fifteen years. Ms. Ganger describes Beena
as someone that has been there for her in countless ways over the course of their friendship. Ms.
Ganger states that Beena is remorseful, but that she is already paying for her actions as she has lost
her credentials within their community. Ms. Ganger believes their community will be at a loss
without Beena.
Paulomi Shukla
Paulomi Shukla is Beena’s first cousin. Paulomi Shukla describes Beena as someone that both her
family members and friends look up to for her work ethic, honesty, and dedication. Paulomi Shukla
also describes Beena as someone who is always there for everyone without any kind of expectation
in return. Finally, she states that Beena’s contribution to the Indian community is remarkable: she
will go above and beyond to make sure anyone is helped.
Praful Patel
Praful Patel is Beena’s aunt. Ms. Patel describes Beena as fair, selfless, and compassionate. She
describes the way in which Beena takes care of her mother and in-laws, and how all three seniors
are happy, healthy, and well taken care of.
Pallavi Patel
Pallavi Patel is one of Beena’s friends. Ms. Patel described a situation where Ms. Patel was
diagnosed with breast cancer and was very depressed after her mastectomy. Beena went to visit
her in her home, and told her they were going to celebrate Ms. Patel’s life. Ms. Patel said that
Beena took her out to lunch and pulled her out of a serious depression. Ms. Patel considers it her
privilege to have Beena as a friend.
Suchana Chatterjee
Suchana Chatterjee is one of Beena’s recent coworkers. Ms. Chatterjee describes Beena’s selfless
acts, including that when Beena found out that Ms. Chatterjee that she was unable to get to her
job, Beena started to pick her up and drive her to work every day. Beena still drives Ms. Chatterjee
to work every day. Beena also inspired Ms. Chatterjee to further her education and take a class
with her. Ms. Chatterjee describes Beena as inspiring, and that there is no barrier of age, social
status, or position with Beena.
Suresha Patel
Suresha Patel is the wife of Beena’s late cousin. Ms. Patel describes Beena as someone who speaks
respectfully to all, youn and old, and is loved by every member of their family regardless of age.
Ms. Patel’s husband died in 1991, and Beena has upheld every tradition that a sister would take
care of in Ms. Patel’s family. Ms. Patel describes Beena as a gentle, well-spoken, educated woman.
Finally, Ms. Patel talks about all of the ways that Beena has influenced her family traditions and
celebrations. Beena has made their occasions special, whereas everyone else had just followed the
same routine in a mundane way.
Ruchi Saxena
Ruchi Saxena is Beena Patel’s current boss at Best Brains Buffalo Grove. Ms. Saxena describes
Beena as going above-and-beyond in managing daily operations, and more than just a team
member to every person at work. Beena is like a guide, an elder sister, and a family friend to
everyone at work.
Ambassador Ashok Kumar Attri
Ambassador Ashok Kumor Attri was the Consul General of India in Chicago who knows Beena
because of her diverse services to the Indian American community. Beena has been an active part
in various not-for-profit social services and charitable organizations including: Metropolitan Asian
Family Services (MAFS), Association of Indian Americans (AIA), the Gujarati Samaj, BAPS,
Freedom from Hunger, and others. Ambassador Attri describes Beena as cheerful, keen, and an
enthusiastic member of the society to which she contributed. Ambassador Attri describes Beena
as someone he could never believe would do anything against the law to obtain any personal
benefit, and assures this Court that if she committed any mistake, it is because she has a simple,
trusting, and sincere nature.
(3) the need to afford adequate deterrence and the need to protect the public from further
crimes of the defendant.
There exists a certain synergy between: (a) the characteristics of the defendant and (b) the
need to afford adequate deterrence and the need to protect the public from the further crimes of the
defendant. Defendant is in concert with the United States Probation Department who evaluated
the issues of “need for adequate deterrence” and the “need to protect the public from further
crimes.” Based upon all of the information that was provided to and gathered by the United States
Probation Department, the letters of character that were submitted in Beena’s behalf, Beena’s age,
educational background, lack of criminal background and community involvement, these two
factors concerning “deterrence” and “need to protect” may weigh the most heavily in favor of
Beena Patel in a determination of whether to impose a below the guideline range sentence.
VI. Conclusion
For reasons stated above, Defendant, Beena Patel, prays this Court to consider the
imposition of a sentence that does not include a period of incarceration. More specifically, Beena
Patel prays that this court impose a sentence of three (3) years probation with a fine of $10,000.00.
Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,
By: /s/ Donald J. Angelini, Jr.

Attorney for Beena Patel
Donald J. Angelini, Jr.

ANGELINI, ORI + ABATE LAW
155 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 400
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312)621-0000
dangelini@aoalawoffice.com Atty. No. 6194334
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 17 CR 297
v. Judge Sara L. Ellis
BEENA PATEL
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
FOREPERSON: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony

you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
WITNESS: I do.
―Oath, Sworn to before the Grand Jury by Defendant Beena Patel on

October 15, 2015, and July 14, 2016
On two separate occasions, defendant Beena Patel, after swearing to that oath
to tell the truth, lied repeatedly to a federal grand jury. In doing so, she successfully
threw a wrench in the wheels of justice and ground them to a halt. Defendant was
called before the grand jury to provide testimony related to allegations that
individuals were purchasing jobs and promotions at the Circuit Court of Cook County
Clerk’s Office. Rather than testify truthfully and assist the grand jury in this portion
of its investigation, defendant chose to willfully obstruct it by lying. Defendant not
only had answers to the questions the grand jury was asking, but had information
that went to the very heart of its investigation when it was examining why a job
applicant to the Clerk’s Office paid $15,000 in cash to the Clerk of Court: defendant
had critical information that was at the crux of the grand jury’s investigation because
defendant was not only aware of the bribe payment, she had herself brokered it.
As described below and established at trial, in August 2014 Sivasubramani
Rajaram gave $15,000 to Goat Masters, a business owned by the Clerk of the Circuit
Court of Cook County and her husband. In exchange, Rajaram was rehired at the
Clerk’s Office. Defendant herself orchestrated this bribe, and then lied about it.
Defendant was an active participant in Cook County’s seminal problem of “pay-to-
play” corruption, and she took active measures to cover up that corruption when she
lied. Yet even now, after a jury convicted defendant on all three counts of the
indictment, defendant still refuses to accept responsibility for her actions. Despite
sitting through her own trial, defendant preposterously states in her version of the
offense that she “is without information as to what effect [ ] her false statements had
on the grand jury’s ability to understand the dynamic of what was going on, and to
what extent her false testimony prevented the government from proceeding with
prosecutions.” As a result of defendant’s crimes, and her continued unwillingness to
accept responsibility for those crimes, the government seeks a within-guidelines
sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.1
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Grand Jury Investigation of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook
County.
In light of defendant’s decision to proceed to trial, the following is a summary
of the grand jury’s investigation prior to defendant’s first appearance on October 15,
1 Probationhas calculated defendant’s advisory Guidelines range to be 30 to 37

months’ imprisonment. The government’s Guidelines calculation is lower, detailed below,
resulting in an advisory Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment.
2
2015, set forth to address the materiality of defendant’s lies.
In the summer and fall of 2015, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, federal
prosecutors, and the grand jury were well over a year into a grand jury investigation
that included allegations that jobs, promotions, and pay raises within the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County were being exchanged for certain
benefits, including money and loans to the Clerk, her campaign, or to businesses
owned by the Clerk and her husband.
Up until late August 2016, defendant worked in the Clerk’s Office for almost
thirty years and most recently held the title of Associate Clerk, earning
approximately $110,000 per year.
Prior to defendant’s first appearance before the grand jury on October 15, 2015,
one aspect of the government’s investigation was centered on the conduct of two
Clerk’s Office employees, one of whom was Rajaram. The FBI had information that
Rajaram may have loaned $15,000 to Goat Masters Corporation, a company with ties
to the Clerk and her husband, and that just weeks after those two financial
transactions, Rajaram was hired at the Clerk’s Office. Less than a year after those
payments, Rajaram received a promotion in the Clerk’s Office. On October 1, 2015,
Rajaram testified before the grand jury and lied about various topics, including the
nature of a payment he made to the Clerk, which payment was brokered by the
defendant.
The investigation’s second person of interest was Clerk’s Office employee, Pinal
Patel, who has no relation to defendant. The FBI had information that Pinal Patel’s
3
brother had made two $5000 contributions to the Clerk’s campaign, and, shortly after
each of those contributions to the campaign, Pinal Patel received promotions in the
Clerk’s Office.
B. Defendant Lies to the Grand Jury in Two Separate Appearances on

Multiple Topics.
It is against this backdrop that the defendant first appeared before the grand
jury on October 15, 2015. The FBI subpoenaed defendant to testify before the grand
jury to determine whether the defendant could shed any light on these two people of
interest—specifically, what information defendant had regarding Rajaram and Pinal
Patel’s employment and promotion history with the Clerk’s Office, and whether their
history had any relation to payments that they or their family members made to the
Clerk’s campaign or the Clerk’s personal business. The FBI subpoenaed defendant to
testify before the grand jury on a second occasion, on July 14, 2016, to address these
same issues, and to confront defendant with additional information acquired during
the course of the investigation, including information which was obtained from
judicially authorized searches of cell phones belonging to defendant, Rajaram, and
the Clerk.
On each occasion when the defendant testified in front of the grand jury, she
took an oath swearing or affirming to tell the truth. After taking that oath, on both
occasions, the defendant was advised that lying under oath was a crime with serious
consequences. On both occasions, defendant was also advised that she could stop the
4
proceeding at any time should she wish to consult with her attorney, who was seated
outside the grand jury room.
As set forth in the indictment, defendant lied about three topics that were of
interest to the grand jury: 1) her knowledge of Rajaram’s contacts with law
enforcement and grand jury testimony, as well as her own contacts with Rajaram; 2)
her knowledge of ticket sales to campaign fundraisers by Clerk’s office employees,
including herself; and 3) her contacts with Wasiu Fashina (the Clerk’s Chief of Staff)
and Pinal Patel. The third topic was relevant after investigators uncovered evidence
that defendant recommended to Fashina that Pinal Patel be promoted because Pinal
Patel and her brother done a lot for the Clerk’s Office (as demonstrated at trial, Pinal
Patel’s brother had made $10,000 in campaign contributions to the Clerk). On April
26, 2019, a jury convicted defendant on all three counts of the indictment, finding
that the defendant knowingly made material false statements before the grand jury
during both of her appearances.
C. The Materiality of Defendant’s Lies.
As explained at trial, each group of lies was material. With respect to Rajaram,
the grand jury was investigating whether the $15,000 that Rajaram gave to the Clerk
several weeks before being hired at the Clerk’s office constituted a bribe. Defendant’s
lies on each of these topics mattered, and affected the course of the grand jury’s
investigation. For example, after a round of questioning in which she continually
attempted to obfuscate the truth, defendant was eventually forced to admit that she
was present at the Corner Bakery when Rajaram handed over a $5,000 cash payment.
5
Her knowledge of that payment, and the circumstances surrounding it, went to the
very heart of what the grand jury was investigating with respect to Rajaram’s
suspected bribe payment.
With respect to ticket sales, the grand jury was investigating whether
employees were receiving promotions, raises, or other benefits in exchange for raising
money for the Clerk. Defendant was asked several times, and in several ways,
whether she was involved in selling tickets or knew of other employees at the Clerk’s
Office who sold tickets. She unequivocally denied any knowledge of these matters.
That was proven to be a lie at trial after multiple witnesses—and defendant’s own
forensically recovered text messages—clearly established that defendant was not
only aware of employees selling tickets within the Clerk’s Office, but that she herself
sold tickets, collected money from other employees from ticket sales, and organized
fundraisers. As Special Agent O’Leary explained at trial, in a pay-to-play
investigation, whether employees were receiving benefits in exchange for raising
money for the Clerk was a topic of interest to the grand jury, and defendant’s lies on
that topic were material.
A third aspect of the investigation was whether Pinal Patel’s brother had paid
bribes in exchange for Pinal Patel’s promotions. Defendant herself drew a connection
between Pinal Patel’s brother’s donations and Pinal Patel’s job prospects when she
recommended in a text message to the Clerk’s Chief of Staff that Pinal Patel be
promoted because her brother had done a lot for the Clerk’s Office. Again, defendant’s
lies on this topic were clearly material, and were designed to impede the investigation
6
of corruption at the Clerk’s Office.
II. SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATION
The government’s guidelines calculation does not include two points for a
multiple count adjustment, 2 resulting in an adjusted offense level of 17 and a
Guidelines range of 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. Otherwise, the government
agrees with Probation’s guidelines calculation, specifically the application of
Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2) and that defendant does not receive credit for acceptance of
responsibility, as follows.
First, contrary to defendant’s objection, Probation’s application of Guideline
§2J1.3(b)(2) is appropriate given the impact that defendant’s lies had on the
government’s investigation of job buying in the Clerk’s Office and the government’s
ability to bring charges against those involved in this illegal activity—and the
unnecessary expenditure of governmental and court resources. See PSR at ¶33.
According to the Application Notes to Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2):
“Substantial interference with the administration of justice”

includes a premature or improper termination of a felony investigation;
an indictment, verdict, or any judicial determination based upon
perjury, false testimony, or other false evidence; or the unnecessary
expenditure of substantial governmental or court resources.
2The
PSR calculates the adjusted offense level as 19 and a Guidelines range of 30 to
37 months’ imprisonment. PSR at ¶44. To arrive at that offense level, Probation applied a
two-point multiple count adjustment, finding that defendant’s two appearances before the
grand jury constituted separate proceedings pursuant to Guideline §2J1.3(d)(1). PSR at
¶¶38-40. The government agrees with defendant that the multiple counts of conviction are
grouped together for purposes of Guideline §3D1.2 because, pursuant to Application Note 5
of Guideline §2J1.3(d)(1), multiple grand jury proceedings do not constitute “separate
proceedings.”
7
U.S.S.G. §2J1.3(b)(2), Application Note 1. Both the first and third examples of this
Application Note apply to defendant’s conduct. First, because of defendant’s lies to
the grand jury—which extended beyond the Indictment and made it impossible for
the grand jurors to distinguish between defendant’s lies and later-extracted truthful
information—and resulting perjury conviction, defendant compromised herself and
the government’s ability to use her as a testifying witness in any future proceeding
of those involved in buying and selling jobs and promotions in the Clerk’s Office. As
a result, defendant’s lies directly impacted the government’s ability to charge those
most culpable in the illegal activity.3
In addition, defendant’s perjury resulted in the unnecessary expenditure of
substantial government and court resources, resulting from: defendant’s trial; the
need to put defendant, Pinal Patel, and others before the grand jury multiple times;
and the need for the government to obtain search warrants and subpoenas and
conduct additional witness interviews. Such additional investigative steps were
necessary to attempt to ferret out defendant’s lies from the truth, and to attempt to
determine what really was occurring within the Clerk’s Office in light of the
defendant’s improbable grand jury testimony. Accordingly, the three-point
3 The government would note that defendant had the ability to assert her Fifth
Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and was advised by the government of her
right to do so. Had she exercised that right, the government would have had other options
available to secure her truthful testimony, such as immunizing her. Instead, the defendant
intentionally led the government astray on multiple topics in two separate grand jury
appearances. In a case such as this, where defendant had firsthand knowledge of a bribe
payment, defendant’s lies had a significant negative impact on the government’s
investigation.
8
enhancement pursuant to Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2) is appropriately applied here. See
United States v. O’Neill, 116 F.3d 245, 250 (7th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s
application of Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2) resulting from unnecessary expenditure of
government or court resources based on government’s need to look elsewhere for
evidence it had sought from defendant: “O’Neill submits that his sentence cannot be
enhanced for forcing the government to expend additional resources because he was
merely asked to corroborate information the government already possessed, rather
than to furnish ‘new’ information the government did not already possess. This
argument is meritless. Regardless of whether the government was seeking new facts
or verification of facts it already possessed, O'Neill’s lies forced the government to
look elsewhere for the information it sought, thereby expending additional
resources.”); United States v. Atkin, 29 F.3d 267, 269-70 (7th Cir. 1994) (affirming
district court’s application of Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2) to perjury conviction where
defendant’s lies to grand jury resulted in government’s presentation of five additional
witnesses before grand jury, including one that had to be flown in from Texas,
constituting unnecessary expenditure of substantial government or court resources);4
4In Atkin, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the lower court’s holding based solely on the
prosecutor’s statements to Probation with respect to the resources which were extended as a
result of defendant’s lies. 29 F.3d at 269. In this case, and contrary to defendant’s statements
in her sentencing memorandum that the only support for this enhancement stems from
“conclusory” statements to Probation by the case agent and prosecutors, the evidence at
defendant’s trial supports the proper application of Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2). For example, the
trial evidence included the testimony of multiple witnesses who testified about appearing
before the grand jury (some on multiple occasions, for example, Pinal Patel) and being
interviewed by federal law enforcement, as well as the admission of text messages resulting
from searches of the various cell phones.
9
United States v. Bradach, 949 F.2d 1461, 1463 (7th Cir. 1991) (affirming district
court’s finding of proper application of Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2) in light of unnecessary
expenditure of government resources including impairing the grand jury’s
proceedings and four perjury-related trials); United States v. Lueddeke, 908 F.2d 230,
234-35 (7th Cir. 1990) (affirming application of Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2), resulting from
unnecessary expenditure of government resources, where FBI agents spent two
weeks sorting out the truth following defendant’s initial perjury).
Probation is also correct that defendant does not receive credit for acceptance
of responsibility pursuant to Guideline §3E1.1. PSR at ¶43. This is clear in light of
defendant’s decision to proceed to trial, pursuant to Application Note 2 to Guideline
§3E1.1; defendant’s statements to Probation, particularly when she expressed that
she had not done anything illegal, see PSR at ¶43; defendant’s statements in the
Defendant’s Version of the Offense, including her claim that she “is without
information as to what effect [ ] her false statements had on the grand jury’s ability
to understand the dynamic of what was going on, and to what extent her false
testimony prevented the government from proceeding without prosecutions; and,
defendant’s statements in her Sentencing Memorandum, see, e.g., Defendant’s
Sentencing Memorandum at 4-5 (questioning materiality of the lies in the counts of
conviction, despite jury’s conviction on all three counts which necessitated a
materiality finding), at 8 (“While there was not a single jury instruction, which was
submitted to the jury, that referenced whether Beena Patel was a public servant, an
assistant circuit court clerk or a friend of Dorothy Brown, Beena Patel appreciates
10
and understands that her lies could have seriously affected an investigation into
public corruption.”) (emphasis added).
As a result, it is the government’s position that defendant’s advisory
Guidelines range is 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. For reasons further discussed
below, the government seeks a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.
III. SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION
The factors set forth in Section 3553(a) support a sentence of 30 months’
imprisonment, the high end of the applicable Guidelines range.
A. The Nature, Circumstances, and Seriousness of the Offense.
The nature, circumstances, and seriousness of the offense favor a sentence at
the high end of the Guidelines range. See 18 U.S.C. '' 3553(a)(1) & (2)(A). The public’s
expectation that witnesses appearing before a grand jury will testify truthfully is a
fundamental lynchpin of federal law enforcement. Witnesses who lie during the
course of a grand jury investigation not only violate their solemn oath to tell the truth,
but also impede the grand jury’s ability to gather evidence.
Here, defendant’s lies impacted a significant public corruption investigation
into illegal job-buying within the Clerk’s Office, and constituted an assault on the
truth-finding function of the grand jury in this case and the justice system in general.
This Court should send a clear message to anyone, such as the defendant, who seeks
to thwart, by lying under oath, the investigation and prosecution of public servants
who abuse their positions of trust.
11
B. Defendant’s History and Characteristics.
The government acknowledges that defendant has no criminal history and has
made significant contributions to her community. In addition, defendant has
presented letters of support from both family and community members that reflect
positively on defendant’s character. These letters paint a portrait of a family-minded
individual who has given back to her community. The government acknowledges that
these are significant factors in mitigation, and does not lightly recommend a high-
end guidelines sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment in view of that mitigation.
However, the positive attributes detailed in those letters must be considered
against the backdrop of a complete picture of defendant’s history and characteristics.
In contrast to the picture portrayed in her letters of support, the Court must also
consider how defendant conducted herself during her tenure as a high-ranking
Clerk’s Office employee. She lied under oath in two separate appearances before the
grand jury in order to prevent the grand jury from learning the truth about illegal
bribery and extortion activity within the Clerk’s Office. Moreover, defendant was the
one who brokered the deal and facilitated the bribe payment while defendant was
herself employed at the Clerk’s Office and making a six-figure salary. When Rajaram
arrived at the Sabre Room with $10,000 of cash in an envelope in order to obtain
employment within the Clerk’s Office, it was defendant who received that money.
When Rajaram sat at a Corner Bakery dining table across the street from the Daley
Center and handed over an envelope containing $5,000 of cash in order to secure
employment in the Clerk’s Office, it was, again, defendant who accepted the envelope
12
full of cash.5
Defendant’s lies to the grand jury also extended beyond the allegations
contained in the indictment. As shown through the transcript excerpts of defendant’s
testimony which were introduced into evidence at trial (and are attached to the
Government’s Version of the Offense at Exhibits 1 and 2), along with the audio
recordings of defendant’s testimony, defendant clearly attempted to obstruct the
investigation about a number of topics. For example, when originally asked questions
about the meeting at the Corner Bakery at which Rajaram promised to make a $5,000
cash payment in order to receive a job within the Clerk’s Office, defendant clearly
attempted to mislead the Grand Jury multiple times. It was only after an extended
period of questioning that defendant finally admitted that the Corner Bakery
5 As noted above, in August of 2014, Rajaram made payments totaling $15,000,

purportedly for the purpose of investing in Goat Masters. Rajaram also testified before the
grand jury about these payments on October 1, 2015, two weeks prior to the defendant’s first
appearance before the same grand jury. Rajaram lied, and was convicted of perjury in case
number 15 CR 692; Rajaram pled guilty on April 20, 2016. However, Rajaram did submit to
a proffer with the government prior to his indictment in which he admitted that he paid a
bribe (in the form of $15,000 to Goat Masters) to receive his job, and that defendant brokered
the bribe payment. A copy of the FBI 302 memorializing Rajaram’s proffer is attached to the
Government’s Version of the Offense at Exhibit 3.
An under-seal filing is being simultaneously submitted to the Court with this
memorandum which presents confidential information that the Court should be aware of in
considering Rajaram’s proffer.
The information provided by Rajaram during his proffer is credible for several
reasons. At the time of his proffer, Rajaram sought immunity from the government, and
therefore had every incentive to provide truthful information. The government did not
provide Rajaram with immunity; however, the information Rajaram provided was confirmed
by the statements Rajaram and his attorney made at his own sentencing hearing. Rajaram’s
information was also corroborated through: toll records; forensic evidence obtained from the
cell phones of Rajaram, defendant, and the Clerk; historical cell site data; Cook County
employment records; Goat Masters’ bank records; and, records obtained from Goat Masters,
including the two promissory notes introduced at trial.
13
Meeting even took place, or that she was present. When defendant did finally admit
her presence, she attempted to minimize her own involvement by stating that
Rajaram slid the envelope containing $5,000 in cash directly to the Clerk.6 By then,
her testimony had been so misleading and had contradicted itself in so many respects
that it was difficult for the Grand Jury to credit or follow anything that she said.
Unfortunately, just as one example, defendant’s lies, and others, on this topic
successfully derailed the Grand Jury’s investigation of this bribe payment.
Ultimately, defendant, a Cook County employee herself, was an active
participant in Cook County’s seminal problem of “pay-to-play” corruption, and she
took active, intentional, and repeated measures to cover up that corruption.
C. To Afford Adequate Deterrence and to Promote Respect for the Law.
Both Probation and defendant recommend a sentence of probation in this
matter. This Court should outright reject that position.
Probation cites to Rajaram’s sentence of probation received from Judge
Coleman in support of their recommendation in this case that defendant, too, receive
a sentence of probation. Sentencing defendant to a high-end guidelines term of
imprisonment does not constitute an unwarranted sentencing disparity with respect
to Rajaram for a number of reasons. Defendant is a different person from Rajaram,
and while they were both convicted of the same offense, the circumstances
6According to Rajaram’s proffer, defendant accepted these cash payments, both when
Rajaram made a $10,000 bribe payment at the Sabre Room, and again when he made a
$5,000 bribe payment outside the Corner Bakery.
14
surrounding defendant’s offense are much more serious.
While the government does not believe it is appropriate to discuss Rajaram’s
personal attributes in this sentencing paper, the record is clear that Rajaram received
a sentence of probation based, in part, upon significant health and mental health
issues which would have made a term of imprisonment particularly deleterious for
both him and his family.7 Sentencing Rajaram to a period of incarceration was of
serious concern in Rajaram’s case in light of the representations made about
Rajaram’s health, which were credited by the sentencing court.
In addition, different guidelines calculations apply to defendant than applied
to Rajaram. In Rajaram’s case, the government recommended a guidelines sentence
of 15 months’ imprisonment from the Court (the range was 15 to 21 months’
imprisonment). Probation did not apply, and the government did not seek, application
of the enhancement at Guideline §2J1.3(b)(2) for substantial interference with
respect to Rajaram.8 In addition, Rajaram pled guilty. All of these factors lead to
defendant having a higher guidelines sentence.
In total, the 3553(a) factors weigh much more heavily in favor of incarceration
with respect to defendant than they did with respect to Rajaram. Even though
Rajaram’s lies impacted the investigation, the fact that he paid a bribe was
7A copy of the transcript of Rajaram’s sentencing hearing is attached as Exhibit 4.
8 At the time of Rajaram’s sentencing in February 2017, it was unclear to the

government the full effect of Rajaram’s obstruction, particularly because defendant had not
yet even been indicted and the question of defendant’s ability and willingness to cooperate
remained an open question.
15
documented in promissory notes and corroborated in multiple ways. See supra note
5. In contrast, defendant’s perjury had a much more significant impact on the
investigation. For example, only defendant, who was a highly-placed insider within
the Clerk’s Office, is aware of the conversations she had with others outside of
Rajaram’s presence concerning the bribes Rajaram paid to obtain a job in the Clerk’s
Office. Defendant not only refused to provide this information, but lied in an
attempt—a successful attempt—to derail this entire topic of inquiry.
To this day, even after sitting through a trial in which her abundant lies were
proven beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant insists that she did nothing wrong and
refuses to accept the materiality of her lies and impact of her conduct. While both
defendant and Rajaram demonstrated moral ineptness in their repeated lies to the
grand jury and willingness to protect others who participated in bribery and
extortion, on the spectrum of culpability defendant is much higher, and her higher
guidelines calculation accounts for defendant’s more culpable role, her decision to not
accept responsibility and to proceed to trial, and her ongoing refusal to accept
responsibility even after her conviction.
In addition to citing to Rajaram’s sentence, Probation’s additional reasoning
for its recommendation of a sentence of probation is inconsistent and illogical.
Probation cites on the one hand the seriousness of defendant’s crimes and the impact
that her obstruction had on the grand jury’s investigation into corruption in the
Clerk’s Office, but on the other states that defendant’s lack of criminal history and
good deeds in the community warrant a 100% departure from the Guidelines range
16
of 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment. Probation, without any basis, also states that such
a sentence is not a “slap on the wrist” because defendant is now a convicted felon.
Rest assured, even if Probation’s curious conclusion that probation is not a slap on
the wrist were true with respect to defendant, it most certainly will be seen as a slap
on the wrist by the public, and does nothing to promote general deterrence. A
sentence of probation will send a message to future witnesses in public corruption
cases that it is okay to lie under oath because, even if you get successfully prosecuted,
you will still walk free. The bizarre recommendation of the Probation Office, that this
Court depart from the Sentencing Guidelines on the most tenuous of grounds—even
though the guidelines call for a term of imprisonment of 24 to 30 months—is unfair,
unjust, and inconsistent with the very goals that led to the passage of the Sentencing
Guidelines by Congress.
The Guidelines in this case call for the imposition of a term of imprisonment of
between 24 to 30 months’ imprisonment, and the Court should impose sentence
within this range. Of course, as the Court well knows, it has the power to impose a
sentence outside this range, unbridled by the Guidelines. But the government
submits that a Guidelines sentence is appropriate in this case, and, in particular, that
a sentence of 30 months appropriately balances the defendant’s significant mitigation
against the seriousness of the crime and the other factors this Court must consider
under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The defendant lied on multiple occasions regarding multiple
topics under oath before the grand jury in order to protect herself and other public
servants who were within the scope of the illegal job-buying investigation. The time
17
between defendant’s two grand jury appearances spanned nine months, and in those
nine months, rather than reconsidering her prior lies and coming clean, defendant
doubled-down and lied again. Only when confronted multiple times by prosecutors
did defendant provide any truthful information, and even then, defendant minimized
and provided incomplete information. As demonstrated by her role in Rajaram’s bribe
payments to obtain a job, defendant was an active participant in Cook County’s
seminal problem of “pay-to-play” corruption, and took active measures to cover up
that corruption. Defendant participated in serious crimes, and her actions have been
calculated and deliberate. Moreover, a sentence within the Guidelines range is
essential to promote respect for the law and provide just punishment. A sentence
below the Guidelines range, while obviously desired by the defendant and beneficial
to her interests, would not promote respect for the law; rather, it would merely breed
contempt for it, by suggesting that people who choose to ignore the law and lie under
oath in public corruption investigations can simply get away with their crimes
without facing any substantial punishment.
If, as the Probation Office suggests, allowing the defendant to avoid any term
of imprisonment is the appropriate sentence in this case, then why should anyone
feel compelled to respect the law? Why should anyone hesitate before lying under
oath and obstructing investigations of corrupt elected officials, when all that lies
ahead is a possible lecture from the sentencing court before a return to the comfort of
one’s home and a cozy retirement? In these circumstances, why should extortion and
bribery victims and third parties who are forced to work for corrupt elected officials
18
be expected to respect and uphold the law, and rely on the law and the legal system
to deliver just punishment, when those intimately involved in corrupt activity and its
cover-up receive a sentence of probation? Will the citizens of Cook County be satisfied
upon hearing the Probation Office’s explanation that time in prison was ruled out
because yes, the defendant lied under oath, prevented the government from bringing
charges arising from illegal job-buying and the extortion of low-level employees, but
otherwise the defendant led a good life and should therefore not serve prison time? A
federal sentence “may not be based on idiosyncratic penological views (such as that
the severity of criminal punishment has no significance for the victims of crime, but
only for the criminals), disagreement with congressional policy, or weighing
criminals’ interests more heavily than those of victims and potential victims.” United
States v. Goldberg, 491 F.3d 668, 673-74 (7th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases). The logical
conclusion that should be drawn, and which the government urges this Court to draw
in this case, is that the Guidelines provide a meaningful benchmark for courts, and a
sentence of probation for this defendant will not send the appropriate message to the
public. A guidelines sentence of 30 months will send the appropriate message that
there is no place in the criminal justice system for those who lie under oath and
obstruct federal investigations in order to protect corrupt public servants. For these
reasons, the government submits that a Guideline sentence is appropriate, and the
Probation Office’s idiosyncratic approach to sentencing in this case should be rejected
and a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment should be imposed.
19
D. Consideration of supervised release conditions.
While the PSR provides for conditions of probation, the government seeks that
those same conditions be imposed as conditions of supervised release within the
Guidelines range of 1 to 3 years. See PSR at ¶105. In addition to the mandatory
conditions, PSR at ¶ 109 (items 1-3, 7, 9, 10), the government asserts that
discretionary conditions are appropriate in this case, as well. See PSR at ¶110, 111.
CONCLUSION
The government seeks a sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment. Such a sentence
is well supported under Section 3553(a), as it will reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from future crimes of
defendant, properly account for defendant’s history and characteristics, and ensure a
fair and uniform sentence.
Dated: November 12, 2019 Respectfully submitted,
JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.

United States Attorney
By: /s/ Heather K. McShain

Heather McShain
Ankur Srivastava
Assistant United States Attorneys
United States Attorney’s Office
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 353-1414
20
Case: 1:17-cr-00297 Document #: 134-1 Filed: 11/12/19 Page 1 of 53 PageID #:1164
EXHIBIT
FOUR
Case: 1:17-cr-00297 Document #: 134-1 Filed: 11/12/19 Page 2 of 53 PageID #:1164 1
1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
2 EASTERN DIVISION
3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 15 CR 692-1
4 )
Plaintiff, )
5 )
v. ) Chicago, Illinois
6 ) February 27, 2017
SIVASUBRAMANI RAJARAM, ) 10:40 a.m.
7 )
Defendant. ) Sentencing
8
9 TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE SHARON JOHNSON COLEMAN
10
11 APPEARANCES:
12
For the Government: HON. JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR.
13 United States Attorney, by
MS. HEATHER K. McSHAIN
14 MR. ANKUR SRIVASTAVA,
Assistant United States Attorneys
15 219 South Dearborn Street
Suite 500
16 Chicago, Illinois 60604
17
For the Defendant: GEVIRTZ & BORN
18 181 Waukegan Road
Suite 306
19 Northfield, Illinois 60093
BY: MR. ROBERT L. GEVIRTZ
20
21 U.S. PROBATION: MS. REBECCA FOWLIE
22
23 TRACEY DANA McCULLOUGH, CSR, RPR
Official Court Reporter
24 219 South Dearborn Street
Room 1426
25 Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 435-5570
1 THE CLERK: 15 CR 692, USA versus Rajaram for

2 sentencing.
3 MS. McSHAIN: Good morning. Heather McShain and
4 Ankur Srivastava on behalf of the United States.
5 MR. SRIVASTAVA: Good morning, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Good morning.
7 MR. GEVIRTZ: Good morning, Your Honor. Robert
8 Gevirtz on behalf of Mr. Rajaram.
9 THE COURT: Good morning, Mr. Rajaram.
10 DEFENDANT RAJARAM: Good morning, Your Honor.
11 MS. FOWLIE: And good morning, Your Honor. Rebecca
12 Fowlie on behalf of the Probation Department.
13 THE COURT: All right. Thank you, Probation. You
14 may have a seat. Is everyone ready to proceed with sentencing?
15 MS. McSHAIN: The government is, Your Honor.
16 THE COURT: Defense.
17 MR. GEVIRTZ: We are.
18 THE COURT: All right. Mr. Rajaram, as the Court
19 told you last time, this Court has taken this case over from
20 Judge Darrah. And I have reviewed all of the paperwork, the
21 docket, the file, the memoranda, all the exhibits, including a
22 lot of the letters that have been written on your behalf. I
23 have reviewed the case, and I am prepared to listen to your
24 lawyer speak on your behalf in addition to what he has
25 presented in writing. I will listen to the government's oral
1 presentation. And they have made a written presentation.

2 This Court will review -- has reviewed and will take
3 into consideration the presentence investigation report that
4 was put together by Probation. The Court takes in
5 consideration the sentencing recommendation, which both parties
6 have available to it. But the Court expects that neither party
7 will refer to the substance of the sentencing recommendation by
8 Probation as we go through this. However, any of the other
9 supporting documents that were presented in this case by either
10 side are -- obviously were not sealed and are fair argument.
11 All right.
12 Sir, this Court looks at the -- all of those factors,
13 and I'll listen to everyone today. And the Court keeps an open
14 mind until the last minute, because sentencing is the most
15 difficult task that a District Court judge has in my opinion.
16 It definitely is difficult for me. And so the Court needs to
17 make sure that the Court uses everything available to me to
18 give you a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than
19 necessary. And so I look at the statutory guidelines. I look
20 at the advisory guidelines that are advisory. That means the
21 Court can go above the guidelines, within the guidelines, or
22 below the guidelines after hearing all of the arguments and
23 then considering the sentencing factors under 3553 (a).
24 Do you understand?
25 DEFENDANT RAJARAM: Yes, Your Honor.
1 THE COURT: Good. So, first of all, let's go to the

2 presentence investigation report. Sir, I think you had an
3 opportunity -- I'm certain that you had an opportunity to see
4 that report with your lawyer and any subsequent reports. And
5 that would be the, the large packet that was put together by
6 Probation with the history of the case and your own history.
7 Did you see that document, sir? I believe it was probably
8 about 30 pages plus.
10 THE COURT: And you got a chance to go over that with
11 your lawyer, is that correct?
13 THE COURT: Are there any changes to be made in that
14 document, Counsel?
15 MR. GEVIRTZ: No, Judge.
16 THE COURT: All right. And no objections?
17 MR. GEVIRTZ: No objection, Your Honor.
18 THE COURT: All right. Government.
19 MS. McSHAIN: No changes or objections.
20 THE COURT: All right. And the Court notes we're all
21 looking at the report in August of 2016, that report? All
22 right. And there were a few supplementals maybe or at least
23 the most recent was dated February 2nd. The one page document.
24 Everyone has that also? Something that the Court has taken
25 into consideration.
1 MR. GEVIRTZ: Yes.

2 THE COURT: All right. If there are no objections or
3 suggested changes to the presentence investigation report, the
4 Court notes that based on the plea of guilty that you entered,
5 sir, of having a -- giving a false declaration before a grand
6 jury, it was one count that you pled guilty to. Under the
7 statute if you're in custody -- you can receive a sentence of
8 being in custody of up to five years. You could receive. You
9 could receive this Court finds supervised release of up to
10 three years. You could also receive under the statute
11 probation, 1 to 5 years, a $250,000 fine. Restitution is not
12 an issue in this case, and a hundred dollar special assessment.
13 Based on the offense level that has been calculated
14 and agreed to by each side of 14 and a criminal history
15 category of 1, the advisory guideline provisions in this case
16 are 15 months to 21 months in custody. One to three years
17 supervised release. Under the advisory guidelines you would be
18 ineligible for probation. The sentence is 4,000 to 40,000 --
19 I'm sorry. The fine is 4,000 to $40,000, and a special
20 assessment. And once again, sir, I stated that this Court has
21 the option of going above, within, or below the guidelines. Do
22 you understand?
24 THE COURT: So the Court adopts the presentence
25 investigation report. Thank you. All right. Now, the Court
1 will go to a hearing on the recommendations in the light of

2 3553 (a) sentencing factors. This Court's practice is to allow
3 the government to go first and the defense can follow. All
4 right. Proceed.
5 MS. McSHAIN: Thank you. The defendant Sivasubramani
6 Rajaram --
7 THE COURT: Excuse me one second. If it would assist
8 you to have your client sit, you all can sit at the table if he
9 would prefer.
10 DEFENDANT RAJARAM: It's okay. It's okay.
11 THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
12 MS. McSHAIN: Thank you. The defendant Sivasubramani
13 Rajaram finds himself here before this Court at the sentencing
14 hearing because he chose to lie under oath before the grand
15 jury. In August 2014 a high ranking employee of the Clerk's
16 office told the defendant that if he loaned $15,000 to Goat
17 Masters Corporation, he could get his job back at the Clerk's
18 office. Goat Masters Corporation was run by the Clerk's
19 husband. And within days of paying that $15,000, the defendant
20 was rehired at the Clerk's office.
21 He was predictably called as a witness in an
22 investigation involving allegations that individuals were
23 buying jobs and promotions at the Clerk's office. On
24 October 1st of 2015, the defendant took an oath to tell the
25 truth. After taking that oath, he received warnings. Those
1 warnings included that should he lie or make a material

2 misstatement to the grand jury, he could be prosecuted for
3 perjury or obstruction of justice. Defendant did not assert
4 his Fifth Amendment rights. Defendant chose to answer the
5 questions, and defendant chose to lie. And in doing so he
6 chose to willfully obstruct this investigation. As a result of
7 his conduct in this case, the government seeks a sentence of 15
8 months imprisonment.
9 Under the 3553 (a) factors with respect to the
10 nature, circumstances --
11 THE COURT: Excuse me, Counsel. The Court's just
12 going to interrupt real quickly. Can you state with more
13 specificity of his lie and what was involved.
14 MS. McSHAIN: Yes, Your Honor. With respect to his
15 lies in the grand jury and as charged in the indictment, he
16 lied with respect to his conduct -- or his contacts with
17 Individual A, the Clerk of the Court and Individual B, a high
18 ranking employee of the Clerk's office.
19 THE COURT: Lied by saying it didn't happen?
20 MS. McSHAIN: Yes. Lied that -- and, and there are
21 excerpts at Exhibits 1 and 2 of the government's sentencing
22 memorandum that lays out the, the actual excerpts of his
23 testimony. But he lied with respect to having any contacts
24 with Individual A. And he testified with respect to Individual
25 B, the high ranking employee, that his contacts were limited to
1 three or four occasions in passing in person. And in Exhibit 4

2 of the government's sentencing memorandum we have also
3 summarized the actual phone -- the toll records, the e-mails,
4 and also text messages that were recovered as a result of
5 searches on the defendant's phone as well as Individual A and
6 Individual B's phones.
7 THE COURT: Proceed.
8 MS. McSHAIN: Thank you. With respect to the nature,
9 circumstances, and seriousness of the offense, determining the
10 nature of the defendant's contacts with high level officials at
11 the Clerk's office, at the time both before his rehiring and
12 after his rehiring were fundamental to the grand jury's
13 investigation. It went to the very heart of what the grand
14 jury was investigating and considering and looking at.
15 And when the defendant lied to the grand jury about
16 his contacts with Individual A and Individual B, he denied the
17 grand jury an opportunity to explore the nature, the extent,
18 the circumstances that those -- those conversations took place
19 and about what topics. So as a result, he testified that there
20 was no link between this $15,000 cash payment that were made to
21 Goat Masters Corporation and the jobs that both he and his wife
22 were seeking from the Clerk's office at the time of those
23 payments. And he also lied that he had not spoken to
24 Individual A since being rehired, and that he hadn't spoken
25 with Individual B by phone and had only spoken to her on three
1 to four occasions in passing.

2 If the defendant had testified truthfully, the grand
3 jury would have inquired, could have asked questions along the
4 lines of whether that $15,000 loan that the defendant provided
5 gave him access to Individual A in terms of conversations or
6 influencing hiring decisions within the Clerk's office. Again,
7 if he had testified truthfully, the grand jurors could have
8 asked about the role of Individual B with respect to the
9 defendant's rehiring at the Clerk's office. As well as after
10 his rehiring, the grand jury could have inquired of
11 conversations with both Individual A and Individual B with
12 respect to the defendant's pending application for his wife at
13 the Clerk's office.
14 Grand jurors could have also inquired about whether
15 or not that $15,000 payment, along with the rehiring, the grand
16 jurors could have inquired if that actually bought this
17 defendant access to Individual A and Individual B to talk about
18 the pending job application of his wife or this defendant's own
19 issues with his job at the Clerk's office. In the fall of
20 2014, so after his rehiring, it's quite clear from the
21 personnel file for this defendant that he was unhappy with his
22 placement, relocation to 26th and California in December of
23 2014 and that he asked for a transfer back to the Daley Center
24 also in December of 2014.
25 In December of 2014, again as highlighted in Exhibit
1 4, there are contacts including an in person meeting on a

2 Saturday with Individual A and the defendant. But all of these
3 facts, all of these nuances with respect to when these
4 conversations or text messages or meetings occurred, the grand
5 jury was robbed, deprived of any opportunity to inquire of the
6 defendant why did he have these meetings. Why did he have
7 these conversations, because the defendant lied to the grand
8 jury about having the contacts with Individual A and Individual
9 B.
10 With respect to the materiality of these lies, the
11 fact that the defendant has now admitted in his sentencing memo
12 that he made -- that the $15,000 loan based on these statements
13 from Individual B that this could help him get his job back at
14 the Clerk's office, the materiality of his false statements to
15 the grand jury seems abundantly clear. And for the defendant
16 to now say that they were minimally material at best is not
17 supported by the evidence and not supported by his own
18 admissions in his sentencing memo now where he's admitting the
19 $15,000 was based on Individual B's statements to him that
20 making the loan would help him get rehired at the Clerk's
21 office.
22 With respect to the seriousness of the defendant's
23 crime here, the public has an expectation that witnesses who
24 appear before a grand jury, if they choose to answer questions,
25 that they will testify truthfully. And it's, it's fundamental
1 to our federal justice system and to federal law enforcement.

2 There is this expectation and understanding that if witnesses
3 choose to answer questions under oath, they will be truthful.
4 And the defendant here did not testify truthfully under oath.
5 And witnesses who lie impede the grand jury's work.
6 They impede the investigation being conducted by the grand
7 jury. And the seriousness in this investigation of the
8 defendant's lies, the fact that the grand jury has now never
9 been made privy to the fact that the defendant did have all
10 these contacts and conversations with Individual A and
11 Individual B reflects the ultimate impact of the defendant's
12 crime here.
13 THE COURT: Just a question again because I'm getting
14 up to speed. How was the government made aware of the fact
15 that he did not speak truthfully there? He could have just
16 stayed silent, and would you have ever known?
17 MS. McSHAIN: The toll records and then as a result
18 of questions after his testimony, shortly thereafter we
19 obtained search warrants for the phones of the defendant,
20 Individual A, and Individual B. And based on that forensic
21 analysis, some of the text messages were recovered as well as
22 e-mails.
23 THE COURT: To show at the very least there had been
24 some contact?
25 MS. McSHAIN: Some contacts. And I think the
1 recovered text messages and voice -- and I should have said

2 voicemail messages. I apologize. The text messages and
3 voicemail messages, Your Honor, the context of those are also
4 quite enlightening as far as the scope and the substance at
5 least with respect to some of their conversations.
6 THE COURT: All right. Okay. Proceed.
7 MS. McSHAIN: With respect to this defendant's
8 history and characteristics, clearly no criminal history here.
9 And the defendant has presented letters of support from the
10 family and the community. I understand that there's a video
11 today from his -- one of his daughters that will be played.
12 And obviously those factors inure to the defendant's benefit
13 under the 3553 (a) factors.
14 But on balance, taking into consideration the
15 defendant's choices and actions and the crime at issue here,
16 those positives do not cancel out the negatives here and the
17 seriousness of this crime and that the series of choices that
18 this defendant made. In August of 2014 he made a decision. He
19 chose to pay the $15,000 after Individual B informed him that
20 that payment would help him get rehired at the Clerk's office.
21 He cheated out other job applicants by making that loan.
22 A year later when FBI agents first approached him and
23 first interviewed him, he decided to lie to those agents. They
24 came back a second time in September of 2015. He lied to those
25 agents. On October 1st of 2015 he went into the grand jury
1 under oath and he lied to the grand jurors about the

2 conversations and contacts he had with Individuals A and B, and
3 he lied about the nature of the $15,000 payment that he made to
4 Goat Masters Corporation. His motivation appears to have been
5 to protect himself, to protect his job, and to divert attention
6 away from Individuals A and B. And that motivation factors
7 with respect to this man's character and the nature of this
8 man, that he continued the series of bad choices.
9 This was not just one occasion under the heat of the
10 moment. He lied twice to federal agents, and then went into
11 the grand jury under oath with warnings and he chose to
12 continue with his lies. And that series of choices, that
13 series of decisions that he made was calculating, it was
14 knowing, and that's why he finds himself in this position
15 today. And those circumstances, the nature of his decision
16 making and choices over a period of over a year weighs in favor
17 here of a custodial sentence of 15 months imprisonment.
18 Deterrence also is important and a factor for
19 consideration by the Court under the 3553 (a) factors. In this
20 case with this particular defendant he has shown no respect for
21 the law, and he needs to be deterred from future criminal acts,
22 specifically related to this defendant. But general deterrence
23 is hugely important with respect to this crime, Your Honor.
24 The message needs to be sent to other witnesses who appear
25 before grand juries and take an oath under which they swear to
1 tell the truth, that they will be held to that standard. That
2 there needs to be a serious repercussion for lying under oath
3 to a grand jury.
4 THE COURT: And what is your response to based on all
5 that you've read that he has already received serious
6 repercussions?
7 MS. McSHAIN: Every defendant that -- every criminal
8 defendant that walks into this courthouse has to deal with the
9 serious emotional impact that their crimes have had on them
10 personally and on their family. This is -- while, of course,
11 those are factors for the Court to consider under 3553 (a),
12 they are certainly not unique to this defendant. And the fact
13 that the defendant lost his job at the Clerk's office, again,
14 it's a job that he bought with a $15,000 loan payment, and he
15 cheated other honest applicants out of consideration for that
16 job opening.
17 So the fact that the defendant has lost his job and
18 is feeling these -- this impact on him personally, emotionally,
19 and the impact on his family members is not unique to this
20 defendant. And again, while I understand under the 3553 (a)
21 factors it's appropriate consideration, it cannot cancel out
22 the series of, of very calculated decisions and choices that
23 this defendant made. In addition to the message that needs to
24 be sent to the public at large that if you lie under oath,
25 there are serious repercussions.
1 The deterrence that is necessary here for other

2 witnesses who take an oath and decide to lie in the grand jury.
3 A custodial sentence here of 15 months will send the right
4 message to future witnesses that you should not lie under oath,
5 and that there are serious repercussions if you do so.
6 For all of the reasons that the government has
7 outlined in its sentencing memo, for those that we've discussed
8 today under the 3553 (a) factors, we seek a sentence of 15
9 months imprisonment here as a result of the defendant's
10 decision and choice to lie under oath in the grand jury and
11 obstruct the grand jury's investigation of job buying and, and
12 job promotions within the Clerk's office. He has impacted this
13 investigation. The grand jurors have never heard truthful
14 testimony from this defendant about the $15,000 payments and
15 his conversations that he had with Individual A and Individual
16 B.
17 And a message needs to be sent to the public at large
18 that there is significant consequences if you choose to lie
19 under oath in a grand jury. We respectfully request that the,
20 the Court issue a sentence here of 15 months imprisonment.
21 THE COURT: Thank you very much, Counsel. Defense.
22 MR. GEVIRTZ: Judge, I can respond to some of the
23 factual allegations. We have some people that want to talk to
24 Your Honor.
25 THE COURT: How do you wish to proceed?
1 MR. GEVIRTZ: All right. Let me -- first of all, let

2 me respond to some of the comments counsel made. Specifically
3 I was listening to where she talked about his motivation and
4 the materiality. There's no question he lied, those two
5 questions about whether or not he had contact after the loans
6 with Individual A and the amount of contact he had with
7 Individual B. The government alleges that his motivation was
8 calculated to conceal his connection and protect those people.
9 It is absolutely the opposite. And without going
10 into a lot of detail of what I have put in my sentencing memo
11 about his condition, his motivation in lying was basically out
12 of fear. Whether it was a realistic fear or his own fear, he
13 made those two false statements out of fear of some sort of
14 retaliation. If you look at the entirety, you can see this was
15 not a calculated endeavor. At page 59 of the grand jury he
16 admits to both of the loans. He admits who the person was who
17 made him those loans. He admits that he knew that person was
18 the husband of Individual A.
19 At page 62 he talks about the relationship of the
20 Mr. Patel, who solicited the loans in relation with Individual
21 A and that he has strong political affiliations. So he told
22 about the loans. He admitted to the loans. His lie was what
23 contact did he have with A and B after the loans. The
24 government speculates that if he had told the grand jury that
25 he had contact after those loans, they might have inquired
1 further. That is speculation. The grand jury could have

2 inquired of anything. The U.S. Attorney could have inquired.
3 The fact is he admitted to having contact with
4 Individual B. Not as many as he did. And that didn't foster
5 any follow-up questions by the grand jury. So it's
6 speculation. Look, Probation in their presentence report
7 states that it is unclear what the materiality of these lies
8 were. I agree. I've read the cases. Lies are lies. It
9 certainly is somewhat material, but it at best is minimally
10 material.
11 Judge, let me call now -- I have some people.
12 THE COURT: You may. Who are you calling?
13 MR. GEVIRTZ: I'm calling his daughter.
14 THE COURT: All right.
15 MR. GEVIRTZ: State your name and spell your name.
16 MS. RAJARAMSIVA: My name is Saikrupa Rajaramsiva,
17 S-A-I-K-R-U-P-A, R-A-J-A-R-A-M-S-I-V-A.
18 THE COURT: And raise your right hand, please.
19 SAIKRUPA RAJARAMSIVA, DEFENDANT'S WITNESS, DULY
20 SWORN
21 THE COURT: All right. Proceed. Take your time.

22 MS. RAJARAMSIVA: Your Honor, my name is Saikrupa
23 Rajaramsiva, daughter of Siva Rajaram. I'm a 16-year-old
24 junior at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois. I
25 plan on going to college to pursue a career in the medical
1 field in a university this fall. When I was a little girl, my

2 mother always talked about my closeness to my father as a
3 product of being raised by him. When I was born, my mother had
4 a series of health and medical complications that kept her from
5 nursing me as a baby.
6 When I was four months old, I had pneumonia that
7 severely damaged my ability to breathe and take in food. My
8 father was the one that would stay up all night laying me on
9 his chest for warmth and making sure I was breathing. One
10 night in the middle of December my fever spiked, and my father
11 was the one who rushed me to the emergency room. In other
12 words, my relationship with my father began before I even knew
13 how to say dad.
14 My dad has not only been a figure of loving care in
15 my life, but also a role model in my education. He pushes me
16 at times when I have little faith in my academic abilities.
17 This legal case has had a crippling impact on my education.
18 With my father's unemployment, coupled with regular therapist
19 and lawyer bills, our limited financial resources have left me
20 with no other option but to graduate from high school a year
21 early. We were struggling to pay the rent at our current
22 apartment in the school district.
23 The immense amounts of stress from home and
24 overwhelming amount of tasks to finish by the end of the school
25 year is reflected in the drop in my GPA and grades. Even
1 through his own traumatic experience, my dad has told me to

2 keep my head up and try not to let this be a factor in my well
3 being as a person or as a student.
4 He has worked for hours on end to give his daughters,
5 me and my sister, the education he believes we deserve. After
6 the first visit from the FBI, my own emotional health began to
7 plummet. With the severe anxiety and depression disorder, I
8 turned to self harm and suicidal tendencies. I have since been
9 attending therapy and have been on medications, but my
10 emotional health has not seen a significant rise. My father
11 being sentenced to time in prison will make it even more
12 difficult for me.
13 I do not know how I will be able to wake up every
14 morning to realize my father is in jail. I believe it will
15 inhibit me from moving on in life to be able to go on from
16 college and into adulthood. In Indian culture relatives are
17 very important. Family comes before everything. So naturally,
18 substance abuse and legal problems are looked down upon. When
19 one or the other happened in a family, the head of the
20 household is thought to be incompetent and ashamed. This is a
21 black mark on my family's reputation.
22 The conviction itself has pushed my immediate family
23 to an outcast status. The effect of this can be seen in my
24 grandparents. My own grandparents have not spoken to us in
25 more a year. This is not a temporary effect. Us two girls
1 from a traditional Indian family, my sister and I, will be

2 taking part in arranged marriages. In our culture a marriage
3 is more of a marriage between two families than two people. If
4 my father is sent to prison, it is an irreparable act. Our
5 ability to find a suitable spouse for both me and my sister
6 will be dramatically affected. Hence, it will be something
7 that will follow our families for generations to come.
8 Though I would not be considered an orphan through
9 the legal lens of this nation, I will surely feel and be seen
10 like one without my father in my life for an extended period of
11 time. The past few months have been a nightmare for our
12 family. And I ask this Court for the chance for us as a family
13 to move on. I plead the Honorable Court that they consider the
14 fact that he made a mistake and has suffered endlessly. Our
15 family's well being is based on what this Court decides. Thank
16 you.
17 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much for
18 coming up and reading that. And let me say this to you, young
19 lady: Regardless of whatever the Court's decision is, based on
20 the way you presented that letter and the way you wrote,
21 please, you will be -- you will do well. That is a very
22 impressive letter that you presented. I know it was from the
23 heart, but it was very impressive for a 16-year-old. All
24 right. All right. Thank you.
25 Good morning.
1 MR. JAYARAMAN: Good morning, Judge.

2 THE COURT: Raise your right hand.
3 SARAH JAYARAMAN DEFENDANT'S WITNESS, DULY SWORN
4 THE COURT: All right. Please state your name.

5 MR. JAYARAMAN: My name is Sarah Jayaraman.
6 THE COURT: All right. Proceed.
7 MR. JAYARAMAN: Okay. I'm a 42-year-old man living
8 in Naperville, Illinois with my wife and nine-year-old soon,
9 and I work as an IT security architect to the Nationwide
10 Insurance for the past 14 years.
11 THE COURT: All right. I need you to keep your voice
12 up just a little louder.
13 MR. JAYARAMAN: Sure. I met Siva for the first time
14 in March 1999 when he was with his daughters riding his bike.
15 They were young girls at the time. And we -- you know, we
16 introduced each other and learned that we are from the same
17 state in India and speak the same language. And further our
18 friendship grew stronger, and he has become a family friend of
19 us.
20 At that time I was single and I was living with my
21 three nieces and my sister, who was going through a difficult
22 divorce case. In October 1998 my third niece she was -- she
23 had a undiagnosed brain infection and epilepsy, which led her
24 to a vegetative state with complete loss of speech and fine
25 motor skills. After the sickness till mid-1999 she did not
1 even roll over in bed or swallow food or even the saliva or

2 roll her eyeballs.
3 My sister was struggling to manage between her job
4 and her three daughters. Siva, who just became friends with me
5 very new -- you know, it's very recent, and he baby-sitted my
6 nieces for several hours and even fed my third niece via the
7 feeding tube on multiple occasions without any favor in return,
8 and he was just introduced. And, and that gesture is greatly
9 appreciated by me and my sister, and we never forget his deeds.
10 In year 2000 I moved to Columbus, Ohio, where I lived
11 there for about 11 years. During that time I used to drive
12 from Columbus, Ohio to take care of my nieces from Columbus,
13 Ohio to Chicago every weekend. And when I cannot make it and
14 my sister has work, he used to help taking my nieces to their
15 activities if I cannot make it for that weekend. During my
16 time in Ohio I, I had like constant touch with Siva via
17 telephone and meet frequently when I was in Chicago.
18 In 2011 I moved back to Chicago. I have seen and
19 witnessed Siva's two daughters growing up and how happy the
20 family was. I have always seen Siva as a responsible and
21 loving father of his two daughters and a good husband to his
22 wife. Like many, I first learned through Indian community and
23 media about the charges against Siva. After I learned it, I
24 reached him. And since then I been providing moral and
25 emotional support to him and his family.
1 It's very very uneasy for me to see Siva, his wife,

2 and his two daughters struggling with depression without any
3 hope in future life. Networking is a great strength in Indian
4 community, but at the same time any wrongdoings or pending
5 charges are seen like a taboo. And the community makes its
6 distance from dissociated or involved person. It is very sad
7 that many friends of Siva, almost everyone in the Chicago area
8 they not only bad mouth him, but also have broken ties with him
9 and the family. And it was very very disheartening for Siva.
10 And he never had any support from his friends when he needed it
11 the most in needed time.
12 And you also might have heard about arranged
13 marriages in Indian culture, which is mainly organized with a
14 higher degree of felicitous involvement. And now Siva is very
15 concerned about his daughters' marriage in the future. And
16 this might be a nonissue in most of the other cultures, but in
17 Indian culture a father, head of the family he's the one looked
18 upon when an arranged marriage is happening. He does not have
19 a full-time job, and his part-time job is not adequate enough
20 to support his family and pay his older daughter's medical
21 school fees, who is attending medical school in India.
22 His financial -- his financially insecure and
23 depressive feeling compounding with the legal battle tore him
24 into pieces. Beyond myself, none of, none of his other friends
25 in the Chicago area have attempted to provide any kind of
1 support. And hence, he is completely shattered. On this day I

2 humbly request the Honorable Court to consider Siva as a loving
3 and caring person who provided care to a special needs child at
4 the most needed time of her life for several hours not once but
5 many occasions.
6 As his friend and on behalf his family I request the
7 Honorable Court to give Siva a chance to demonstrate his social
8 responsibilities as a free citizen. Thank you.
9 THE COURT: Thank you very much for coming in and
10 supporting your friend. Thank you, sir.
11 MR. JAYARAMAN: Thank you.
12 MR. GEVIRTZ: Judge, the last is a video from his
13 daughter in India. It's about maybe two minutes long.
14 (Whereupon, said videotape was played in open court.)
15 MR. GEVIRTZ: Thank you, Judge. Judge, all I ask is

16 that when you weigh the 3553 factors against what I consider
17 minimal materiality of his lies, and he did lie, I think the
18 factors clearly fall in favor of a sentence of probation and
19 not incarceration, and that's what we would be asking for.
20 THE COURT: Thank you very much. Probation.
21 MS. FOWLIE: Your Honor, I apologize. I'm hoping to
22 clarify what the advisory guideline range we've established is
23 because I reserved acceptance to today, and I believe there was
24 a disagreement with the parties as to whether or not it
25 applies.
1 THE COURT: Well, the parties had the opportunity to

2 present that to the Court, and both agreed with the guideline
3 calculation. Anyone want to speak differently on that issue?
4 MR. GEVIRTZ: Let me -- yes. Let me just -- you know
5 what, I think I did misspeak. I think the government's
6 guideline is without acceptance, and I think in the original
7 probation report with the acceptance it is two points less. So
8 I would ask the Court --
9 THE COURT: Yes, paragraph 23.
10 MR. GEVIRTZ: Yes.
11 THE COURT: Acceptance of responsibility on page 7.
13 THE COURT: Based on your statements it would appear
14 that I don't know if he'd be a -- he'd be eligible. He would
15 not definitely be eligible for the full amount, but --
16 MR. GEVIRTZ: He's not eligible for the third point.
17 THE COURT: Yes.
18 MR. GEVIRTZ: Right.
19 THE COURT: So --
20 MR. GEVIRTZ: But, you know, our position is, and I
21 misspoke because I forgot that there was a disagreement.
23 MR. GEVIRTZ: Clearly that he has accepted
24 responsibility in this case.
25 THE COURT: All right. And so you're looking for a
1 guideline calculation of 12?

2 MR. GEVIRTZ: 12, Judge, yes.
3 THE COURT: All right. Which would put the range
4 where, Probation?
5 MS. FOWLIE: Your Honor, I believe that it would be
6 10 to 16 months at a 12 and a 1.
7 THE COURT: 10 to 16. And is under that new
8 guideline is probation -- is he eligible for no?
9 MS. FOWLIE: That would put it in Zone C, Your Honor,
10 where you could do a split sentence. So not straight
11 probation, no.
12 THE COURT: All right. Thank you very much.
13 Government, you want to respond to their request.
14 MS. McSHAIN: Your Honor, our position remains that
15 he has not accepted responsibility based on the statements that
16 he made to probation that are memorialized in paragraph 22.
17 And also their position that the, the lies were minimally
18 material at best, we don't think that based on the record right
19 now that he has accepted responsibility. Regardless if Your
20 Honor does give him those two points, our position remains the
21 same that we are still seeking a sentence of 15 months.
22 MR. GEVIRTZ: Well, let me, let me just respond. Mr.
23 Rajaram never said or opined that those were minimally
24 material. That is my -- that's my opinion based upon my
25 knowledge of the law of perjury and my opinion of whether or
1 not how material these are. That's not -- Mr. Rajaram has
2 never said and claimed that these were not lies or not material
3 lies.
4 THE COURT: Well, when you put forth your sentencing
5 memorandum, Counsel, you are representing your client.
6 MR. GEVIRTZ: I am representing my client, but I
7 think that's a legal issue, not a factual issue where he's not
8 accepting responsibility for those lies.
9 THE COURT: Any further response?
10 MS. McSHAIN: Your Honor, may I talk to Mr. Gevirtz.
11 THE COURT: Off to side?
12 MS. McSHAIN: Off to the side, please.
13 THE COURT: Sure.
14 (Brief pause.)
15 MS. McSHAIN: Your Honor, our position remains the

16 same. And, you know, with respect to that sentencing memo, you
17 know, the arguments that have been made today are that the lies
18 were not -- or were minimally material at best, which we
19 strenuously disagree with. They went to the, the heart of this
20 investigation. But second and apart from that, I mean, the
21 PSR --
22 THE COURT: Counsel, are you saying that whatever the
23 investigation was fell apart because of just this man's
24 situation and the -- you say the lies he told, which were
25 obviously easily found out, fairly easily found out by you.
1 MS. McSHAIN: Your Honor, the grand jury has never

2 heard the truth. So looking at, you know, the elements with
3 respect to this crime and the window of time when these lies
4 were made and then when they were discovered shortly
5 thereafter, the grand jury has never been given an opportunity
6 to hear the truth. To hear the content or volume of
7 conversations or substance of conversations that the defendant
8 had with Individuals A and B, to include these very relevant
9 conversations with Individual B prior to his rehiring that
10 formed the basis for him making the $15,000 loan to Goat
11 Masters.
12 THE COURT: When you say they have never heard the
13 truth, you got the information, right?
14 MS. McSHAIN: Yes. They've never heard it from this
15 defendant.
16 THE COURT: Okay. But you have the information?
17 MS. McSHAIN: We have the information, Your Honor.
18 But the grand jury --
19 THE COURT: And you give evidence to the grand jury?
20 MS. McSHAIN: We give evidence to the grand jury,
21 Your Honor. But the grand jury has never heard from this
22 defendant --
23 THE COURT: The Court understands from this
24 defendant. But you have the information, is that correct?
25 MS. McSHAIN: We have --
1 THE COURT: You just don't have him going to the

2 grand jury and being questioned by the grand jury, that's your
3 argument?
4 MS. McSHAIN: Yes. And with respect to that moment
5 in time when he lied the grand -- you know, the grand jury --
6 he's never returned to the grand jury and corrected his lies.
7 THE COURT: All right. The Court understands.
8 MS. McSHAIN: Okay.
9 THE COURT: Counsel.
10 MR. GEVIRTZ: That's all, Judge. Many of the
11 statements that he made afterwards, you know the circumstances
12 and you know his mental condition when he made those
13 statements. And I think that's what the government's referring
14 to.
15 THE COURT: The Court has all that in front of me.
17 THE COURT: All right. Anything else from defense?
18 Before I, before I -- now that I have heard all the
19 arguments --
21 THE COURT: -- this comes up belatedly, the Court's
22 going to go ahead and complete hearing the evidence. And then
23 I'll take a moment to make my final ruling on what the
24 guideline parameters should be and also what the sentence
25 should be. So, Mr. Rajaram, you have the opportunity standing
1 right where you are to speak to this Court on your own behalf,
2 if you wish to do so. Everyone who stands before this Court
3 for sentencing has that opportunity from this Court to take
4 your statements into consideration. You also do not have to.
5 Either way, sir.
6 DEFENDANT RAJARAM: Thank you, Your Honor. Okay.
7 THE COURT: Anytime you're ready.
8 DEFENDANT RAJARAM: Thank you. Your Honor, I
9 Sivasubramani Rajaram is a married man with two, with two kids.
10 My elder daughter is 21 years old. Just now you see she's
11 studying in India as a medical student. My daughter, the
12 younger one 16 years old, is high school. Obviously to become
13 a medical doctor. I love my kids. I love my kids more than
14 everyone I believe.
15 The U.S. Attorneys they mention my motivations. I
16 didn't deny that motivation. My motivation is to protect
17 myself and my family. Nothing else. Nothing else. My family,
18 myself. Chicago is a gun violent city. You know very well,
19 Your Honor. I'm from Asian country India. I'm scared about
20 the people. I'm seriously scared about the people, Your Honor.
21 My fluence in English is very weak, Your Honor. If there is
22 any mistake, please pardon me.
23 To begin with I would like to you know the reason
24 behind my action in front of the grand jury, which led me to
25 the perjury charge I face. I had a fear of the official
1 political power and the influence and status in community for

2 the individuals involved in this case. You know, Your Honor,
3 those individuals are high powered people politically,
4 community based, and everything. I'm so scared with them. I
5 mentioned several times to several people.
6 Before I go to the grand jury on October 1st, I
7 mention that to many people. I don't want to mention who I
8 mention, though. I mention I'm so feared. But their -- in
9 their point of view my fear is not material. They says did he
10 get a real threat? I don't have any evidence of a real threat,
11 Your Honor. They are asking the simple question, did you get
12 real threats. No, Your Honor. But I'm so fearful with
13 everyone. Not only now, Your Honor. It starts in 2013
14 onwards.
15 Those two individuals involved in this case which led
16 me to the high level of fear on the grand jury. I am 15
17 years -- 50 years old. Before this I don't have any criminal
18 history in the past. After this charge I lost my job, and I
19 was diagnosed with the cardiac problems and the clinical
20 depressions, and I begin treatment with the medications and
21 therapy.
22 Your Honor, the court -- I follow the court
23 proceedings. I studied law in my native language and in India.
24 I didn't study law in English. I studied law in my native
25 language. I'm giving very powerful thought, honor to the
1 justice. When we entered into the courtroom, we always pledge

2 the judge as a god. Not like here. We always do like this,
3 (indicating).
4 THE COURT: Not like here. You're right here, sir.
5 Go ahead.
6 DEFENDANT RAJARAM: On July 26th, 2016 I was summoned
7 before the Honorable Chief Justice Castillo regarding immunity
8 on conditional second appearance before the grand jury. Judge
9 Castillo was not aware of my pending perjury charge. And when
10 I asked the Judge Castillo to grant me complete immunity, Judge
11 Castillo directed me to request it from you, the judge who
12 handled my case. It is under the July 26th, the transcript.
13 The Honorable -- you know that, Your Honor.
14 After my interactions with the judge the morning of
15 July 26th I had a serious chest pain and fainting and suicidal
16 thoughts in the U.S. Attorney's office that led me to have
17 mental breakdown. They know very well, Your Honor. The
18 official made the decision to get me medical attention as soon
19 as possible. The doctor were very concerned with my history of
20 depressions, and they had me situated in the crisis area of ER.
21 I was treated for two days in the cardiac observation unit, and
22 then I was transferred to the psychotic ward.
23 I was advised by Dr. Dago, the psychiatrist in
24 Northwestern Community Hospital to get additional help through
25 inpatient, outpatient therapy for my mental health. Following
1 doctor's orders I have been attending the inpatient, outpatient

2 group therapy at the Chicago Behavioral Hospital in DesPlaines,
3 Illinois. A little over year I am getting treatment with the
4 Dr. Noorani psychiatrist and the therapy with the Annie Porter
5 from Turning Point for my depression and anxiety.
6 Later on January 26th of 2017, last hearing, Your
7 Honor, when the hearing date was rescheduled to date, the
8 further delay let me break down once again. I lost control of
9 my mind. Letting the mental pressure take over my mental
10 state. On 26th again, official made the decision to get me
11 medical attentions. And hence, I was hospitalized for 72 hours
12 under observations.
13 Your Honor, in Indian culture, social engagement is
14 the main form of maintaining mental well being by venting and
15 sharing emotions with the relatives and friends. Indian
16 society being close knit, Your Honor, both the good and bad
17 incidents are talked between the large group, and the gossip
18 spread very fast. Relatives and friends learned about the
19 incident from newspaper and TV. Then they kept the distance
20 from myself and my family. And this resulted in unexplained
21 amount of shame. Punishing me every minute of my life. Even
22 blood relatives and most of the close friends started avoiding
23 me and my family during the most needed time of my life with
24 the emotional support.
25 Also my daughter wedding depends on social status,
1 Your Honor, and the relative support. Because of my current

2 situations, my relatives have broken ties with me and my
3 family. This cause the return of mental stress every second
4 thinking about the uncertainty of what is the future of my
5 family. Especially my two daughters. From the start the legal
6 proceeding has had an even bigger effect on my family. My
7 parents, who resides in India are stricken with old age and the
8 stress due to my case.
9 Relatives and the society shamed my parents due to my
10 current situation which it created mental stress to both my
11 parents. My father, Your Honor, he is already suffering from
12 prostate cancer. My mom has a heart disease. With the
13 emotional and the mental stress I am unable to secure a decent
14 paying job to support my family. In the last one year my
15 family is facing financial hardship without sufficient income
16 and struggling my daughter's education expense and with feeding
17 the family.
18 I beg the honorable judge to consider my situation
19 and my two daughters' future by giving me a chance to becoming
20 a more responsible person even before serving the -- serving
21 for the well being of both the community and my family.
22 Getting full-time job to support my family and my parents with
23 the convictions will be very challenging and difficult. And
24 hence, I beg the Honorable Court to consider my request to do
25 community service instead of convictions, Your Honor. If Court
1 permits, I'll do the -- I did a mistake, Your Honor. I'm not

2 saying no. But instead of convictions give me community
3 service. I'll do. Please, Your Honor. Please.
4 You are not punishing one people, Your Honor. My two
5 daughters, my wife, my two -- my parents. I came from -- my
6 dad is a retired teacher. He gave me very valuable things.
7 I'm not helping not only my kids, Your Honor. I'm helping the
8 needful kids. I'm helping them. I'm not saying proud of
9 myself. I'm -- I -- my heart is like that. Please, Your
10 Honor.
11 THE COURT: I hear you, sir. The Court has heard you
12 and watched you and listened to you, and your words will be
13 taken into consideration seriously with all of the other words
14 that have been presented in this court by you, your family,
15 your lawyer, as well as the government counsel, their
16 presentations and Probation's. All right. The Court will
17 reconvene at 12 noon. All right. Thank you very much.
18 (Short break taken.)
19 THE COURT: All right. Thank you all for your

20 patience, and thank you for your presentations to the Court.
21 First of all, the Court's going to start out with its
22 ruling on the presentence investigation report and the
23 calculations as to the -- whether or not the defendant Mr.
24 Rajaram should be given credit for acceptance of responsibility
25 here.
1 After reviewing all of the arguments that have been

2 presented in writing and orally, the presentence investigation
3 in full, and particularly the defendant's own statements in
4 court today, this Court is going to deny the request for
5 acceptance of responsibility deductions. And the, the
6 presentence investigation report as adopted will stand. Again,
7 the offense level is 14. The criminal history category is 1.
8 Again, these advisory guidelines is from -- stays at 15 to 21
9 months in custody as an advisory guideline along with the
10 others that have been stated. One to three years supervised
11 release. The guideline stating ineligibility for probation.
12 The fine is the same, and the special assessment of a hundred
13 dollars.
14 As I stated early on, though, Mr. Rajaram, the
15 guidelines are advisory. And so the Court goes on having those
16 guidelines before it, which the Court appreciates and relies on
17 greatly. And then the Court looks at the sentencing factors
18 under 3553 (a) to determine whether the Court should stay
19 within those guidelines or go below the guidelines and in
20 rendering a sentence in your case that is sufficient but not
21 greater than necessary.
22 The Court, first of all, always starts out with the
23 sentencing factor of the nature and the seriousness of the
24 offense. Lying to the grand jury, lying under oath, sir, is
25 serious. There is no two ways about it. It impedes justice.
1 It diminishes this Court's -- the public's respect for the law.

2 And, sir, it is compounded in your case by the fact that you
3 are a lawyer, and that you worked in a court system here in
4 this country. The Court notes and gave credence to the
5 positive letters from lawyers that were presented on your
6 behalf, and they stated how you always acted professionally.
7 In fact, it was sort of interesting that one of them
8 even referred to you didn't ask them to buy tickets or do
9 things for you when you treated -- when you served them as a
10 clerk in the courthouse. I thought that was interesting that a
11 lawyer pointed that out. But lying to the grand jury, the
12 charge that you have been convicted of and that you pled guilty
13 to, is very serious and cannot be understated. You indicated
14 your habit of respect for the law and how you approach this
15 Court and how you salute the Court when you come into a
16 courtroom.
17 However, this Court suspects that you may have done
18 the same thing when you went into the grand jury. And yet you
19 lied in the legal system. Maybe not to the extent claimed by
20 the government, but on multiple questions you lied about
21 matters that they were easily able to -- they were able to
22 check and show that they were lies. And so we have to rely on
23 people being truthful. And that is why perjury is a
24 separate -- lying, lying in court, lying to federal officials
25 is a charge that can stand by itself. It's that serious and
1 cannot be allowed to happen over and over again.

2 The Court looks at whether or not your offense is a
3 danger to the public. Is there a danger, meaning that people
4 are in jeopardy by the offense that you gave? No. Trust in
5 the system is in jeopardy, but I don't believe that that was
6 what was intended with danger to the public. And the Court
7 won't give real credence to that factor.
8 The fact that the underlying or the, the crime that
9 is also one that was investigated here of giving money to
10 secure a job is also wrong. It's something that the Court
11 takes into consideration in the seriousness of this offense,
12 and you knew that, sir. You are an educated man. You know how
13 the system works, and you knew it. And then you lied about it
14 to some extent. And again, that underscores the seriousness of
15 this offense and the nature of this offense.
16 The Court found it interesting that you took this
17 step after you had had employment with this office before.
18 Who's to say that you wouldn't have gotten the job again by
19 applying. You left on your own volition the Court assumes when
20 you went to take care of your parents in India, and then you
21 came back and you asked for the job again. So you may not have
22 even had to go down this road. The connection that could have
23 been made is probably speculation.
24 There's a lot of speculation still here as to what
25 the jury would have -- grand jury would have asked you or not.
1 I think some of that is speculation. The government can't say

2 for a fact that this would be the next question they would have
3 asked if you had answered a certain way. And then it's clear
4 that they could also get some of the information they needed
5 from other sources. But the fact is you lied to multiple
6 questions.
7 The Court does see as to the seriousness of this case
8 is that there is perhaps some bigger issue that the government
9 is investigating or was investigating, and maybe you impeded
10 that to some extent or slowed it down. But it seems like they
11 want by asking for 15 months in jail, they're asking for you to
12 pay the brunt of the crime. And that concerns the Court.
13 You say, sir, that you were scared when you were
14 answering questions, and the Court believes that was true but
15 not because of any recent violence that may be happening in the
16 community at large in Chicago or as to your particular ethnic
17 community in particular. And there are things going on in this
18 country right now that are extremely disturbing. There are
19 things going on in this city that are extremely disturbing.
20 However, that was not the reason -- that kind of fear was not
21 the fear that you had. This Court does not believe that would
22 be borne out because all those things postdate your, your
23 activity in this case, the lying that you did in this case.
24 The Court does believe that you lied because of your
25 family, your job, your status, and the realization of what
1 giving the whole truth would mean to your situation. And

2 that's not allowed. You can't do it. This justice system will
3 not work, sir, again, without the reliance on the truth. On
4 the other hand, the lie that -- the lies that you have been --
5 pled guilty to and that the government is accusing you of in
6 this case do not appear to be the lie of the century or the
7 crime of the century. And as this Court stated, there is some
8 speculation about what questions the grand jury would have
9 asked here.
10 But lying to federal officials and to grand juries,
11 court systems has to be deterred. And in your particular case
12 this Court doesn't know if we need specific deterrence here.
13 You've clearly shown that you are suffering from great shame.
14 Your family is in pain. Your life situation has been turned
15 upside down just as much it would be really no matter what
16 sentence this Court gives you. This Court does not see you
17 repeating this particular offense. But what's important, I
18 think what's really important to the government is general
19 deterrence. If they can't undergo their investigations, they
20 can't go forward, they just can't do their jobs if people lie
21 to them without thinking that there will be any real
22 consequence.
23 There's some disagreement with this Court and the --
24 probably the authorities as to what is some consequence. Jail
25 is not the only consequence that deters people. That is true.
1 And it doesn't always deter. Otherwise we might not have the

2 violence that we have in the city if it did.
3 A felony conviction for a professional man who has
4 lied, has lost earning potential, status is no small thing.
5 The government has made it clear in this case no matter what
6 the sentence, by even bringing this case and by standing by its
7 position in this case and other cases such as this that they
8 will prosecute. They will bring people to account for lying
9 when it comes to lying to the authorities. They will not back
10 off on that. That alone should be a deterrence.
11 I look at your personal characteristics, sir, and
12 your history. You have no criminal background at all outside
13 of this incident. You clearly are a family man who loves and
14 cares for your children. You are a hard worker at whatever job
15 you do undertake, and you care for your parents. You attempt
16 to do what is right. The Court notes that based on everything
17 the Court has read and heard and observed in the short time
18 that I've had this case, that it appears that you had a
19 strained family life years before this event happened and had a
20 lot of stressors on you years before this incident happened.
21 But I will say, as the government said, and agree,
22 children, families are always collateral damage when you have a
23 criminal conviction. And you may not be aware of it, but
24 nearly every person who stands before me for sentence loves
25 their children, loves their parents, loves the, the members of
1 their family. And so that is not unusual. And it is always

2 heartbreaking for this Court to hear from young people who are
3 affected by the fact that they will -- their parents have, have
4 stress. Their parents may go to jail. Or even when their
5 parents don't go to jail, the whole incident usually takes --
6 is, is much harder on those family members close to you as it
7 is to the person themselves.
8 This Court rarely looks at the people who stand
9 before me convicted of a crime as bad people. There can be
10 good fathers, good husbands, good friends who have done
11 something wrong under the law. And they have to pay the price
12 for it. That's the bottom line.
13 Now, in your particular case when I look again at
14 your background, you bring up another issue. It's been brought
15 up by your family, your friends, your daughters; and that is,
16 the cultural aspect based on your Indian heritage. And, and
17 the Court understands that and takes everything said into
18 account.
19 The Court does note that, though, you were in this
20 country, you were living in the suburbs. You were part of the
21 American culture. Your children were going to American
22 schools. And, you know, when you talk about things that you
23 wish for your children culturally, no school loans, that's a
24 luxury that most people don't have, and not something that's
25 necessary to a child being able to get through life unscathed.
1 When you talk about -- you know, there's scholarships and

2 school loans are a way a lot of American children get through
3 going to college without any type of repercussions.
4 You know, you say, you know, arranged marriages,
5 that's key. The Court would, would venture to say that
6 considering all of the, the fallen taboos on interracial
7 marriages and other marriages in the States and how those are
8 not looked down upon or, or are not unusual in our day and age
9 in the community, that the Court would hope, and maybe doesn't
10 know for a fact, but would hope that there are plenty of
11 avenues for your children to fall in love and have spouses that
12 are hopefully kind to them and supportive of them and will help
13 them to have good lives, especially if they have a father who
14 they believe is a great example on how to treat their families,
15 which it sounds like that's how they feel about you.
16 And so again, the children's concerns in this case
17 cannot be paramount. That's not the issue here. What is
18 paramount when the Court considers your personal
19 characteristics, sir, is the need for mental health treatment.
20 That's paramount. Even the government can't minimize the
21 situation that they themselves have witnessed, where there is
22 clearly need for continued assessment, need for continued
23 monitoring in this case. And although mental health background
24 does not prevent everyone from going to -- being incarcerated
25 as part of their sentence, this Court looks at the actual crime
1 that was committed here plus the mental health concerns.

2 And when the Court looks at its charge of a sentence
3 that is sufficient but not greater than necessary, it would
4 appear from all accounts that imprisonment in your case would
5 be a sentence that is greater than necessary. And this Court
6 will not give it, and will be giving below the guidelines based
7 on the sentencing factors.
8 This Court, sir, will be giving a sentence in this
9 case of 36 -- three years, three years of probation and a fine
10 of $7,500. There's no restitution here. There's a special
11 assessment of a hundred dollars. Sir, as part of the
12 conditions of probation, which will require close monitoring,
13 you will be under the supervision of this Court for three
14 years. In this Court's humble opinion that is not a slap on
15 the wrist. Again, it's a sentence that this Court finds is
16 sufficient but not greater than necessary.
17 You will comply with the following conditions, sir,
18 while you are on probation: You will not commit any other
19 federal, state, or local crime during your term of probation.
20 You will -- again, you'll be paying a fine, $7,500. That will
21 be paid monthly during the period of time you are on probation.
22 At least we'll start out at this point based on what your
23 history is at Home Depot of at least 10 percent of your income.
24 Depending on if your job situation changes, then the Court will
25 revisit that as necessary.
1 The Court is making -- is, is foregoing any community

2 service or additional restitution not only because it has
3 imposed a fine, but due to the circumstances of your mental
4 health condition, which would make community service not a, not
5 a proper environment for you to be in.
6 You will not unlawfully possess any controlled
7 substance. And again, you will notify the Court of any
8 material change in your economic circumstances that would
9 affect your ability to pay your fine. You will cooperate in
10 the collection of a DNA sample if that collection is required
11 by law. Do you understand?
13 THE COURT: If you violate any of those conditions,
14 sir, then you violate this Court's probation, and then you risk
15 going to jail. Do you understand that?
17 THE COURT: You will also, sir, comply with the
18 following conditions:
19 That you will provide financial support -- and this
20 Court's going to be more specific -- to your minor child, your
21 16-year-old. The Court expects your fine to be paid, and that
22 fine should not be put to the side because you're paying a
23 daughter's medical school education. So if you wish to try to
24 pay that, you can, but the fine has to be paid during the
25 three years. Do you understand, sir?

2 THE COURT: You will seek work -- continue to work at
3 your employment either that you have or make sure that you have
4 employment during the course of this probationary period. And
5 you will be able to show that you are seeking work on a
6 constant basis. You will also refrain from knowingly meeting
7 or communicating with any person who you know to be engaged or
8 planning to be engaged in criminal activity. You will also
9 refrain from meeting and communicating with anyone you
10 previously worked with or had contact with at the Circuit Court
11 Clerk of Cook County. Do you understand?
13 THE COURT: You will refrain from possessing --
14 MR. GEVIRTZ: Judge, excuse me.
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
16 MR. GEVIRTZ: His wife did formerly work there.
17 THE COURT: Formerly work.
18 MR. GEVIRTZ: Right.
19 THE COURT: Is she working there now? I mean, he
20 lives with her.
21 MR. GEVIRTZ: No.
22 THE COURT: You can, you can excuse his wife from
23 that. But the Court is talking about anyone who is working at
24 the Clerk's office.
25 MR. GEVIRTZ: Now.
1 THE COURT: Yes?

2 MR. GEVIRTZ: I'm sorry. Thank you.
3 THE COURT: Or connected with the Clerk's office.
4 MR. GEVIRTZ: Okay.
5 MS. McSHAIN: Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Yes.
7 MS. McSHAIN: May, may I -- just with respect to
8 those conditions, could we please include Individual B, who's a
9 former employee at this point?
10 THE COURT: We can. Individual B can be included. I
11 believe Individual A still works there.
12 MS. McSHAIN: Correct.
13 THE COURT: You will refrain from possessing a
14 firearm, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon,
15 sir. And you will participate at the direction of probation
16 officer in a mental health treatment program, which may include
17 the use of prescription medications. You will go to all
18 counseling sessions as required. Do you understand?
20 THE COURT: You will remain in the jurisdiction where
21 you are being supervised unless you're granted permission to
22 leave by this Court or probation officer. And that includes
23 any emergencies in India. You have to ask permission. And
24 this Court will make a determination on whether you're able to
25 go. Do you understand?

2 THE COURT: You will report to the probation officer
3 as directed by the Court or by Probation at their schedule.
4 You will allow probation officer to visit you at any reasonable
5 time at your home or your work. Do you understand that?
7 THE COURT: And any other reasonable location
8 specified by Probation. This Court usually doesn't have it at
9 work, but I think that your issues at work are already known;
10 and, therefore, this Court believes for your own safety and
11 progress that they should be able to visit you at any time.
12 Hopefully it will not put any employment in jeopardy.
13 You will also permit confiscation of any contraband
14 observed in plain view of the probation officer. You will
15 notify the probation officer promptly within 72 hours of any
16 change in your residence, your employer, or your workplace.
17 You will also notify Probation promptly within 72 hours if you
18 are arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer or if
19 you are contacted by anybody in law enforcement for any reason.
20 That would include asking you to be an informant or give
21 information. Do you understand that, sir?
23 THE COURT: If you are unemployed, sir, after the
24 first 60 days on which you are on probation, or if you are laid
25 off or terminated from employment for more than 60 days --
1 well, we're not doing community service, so that will be

2 stricken. I'm sorry. You will not incur any new credit
3 charges, open additional lines of credit unless you are in
4 compliance with paying the fines as imposed by this judgment.
5 And you need to talk to Probation about it before you do that
6 so they can make sure that you are in compliance before you
7 incur any new credit charges or open lines of credit.
8 You will provide the probation officer at that time
9 or any other time requested with any financial information to
10 make sure you are complying with payments and other conditions
11 of probation. You will also again let the Court or Probation
12 know of any major changes in your economic circumstances so
13 that the Court can adjust the payments to make sure that you're
14 able to complete the fine, payment of the fine.
15 You will provide any documentation to the IRS. And
16 since paying taxes is required by law, and the Court already
17 stated you were to comply with all laws, you must do so. There
18 will be no interest. Is there an issue of interest here or no?
19 MS. FOWLIE: Your Honor, you can order it waived.
20 THE COURT: Yes, waived. The Court waives interest.
21 If Probation determines, sir, that you are a risk to anyone
22 else in the community or in your family, the probation officer
23 has a right to take action to let the person know about the
24 risk, and you will comply with the instructions. Do you
25 understand?

2 THE COURT: You understand all of the conditions I
3 have just told you about, sir?
5 THE COURT: Probation, was there something else?
6 MS. FOWLIE: Yes, Your Honor. I would just ask that
7 you request that the government provide us with the name of
8 Individual B, as I do not know who that is that he's not
9 permitted to speak with.
10 THE COURT: That would be good, government.
11 MS. McSHAIN: Yes, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: All right. Please provide that.
13 MS. FOWLIE: And then also, Your Honor, we would also
14 ask for the condition relating to being a special informant --
15 THE COURT: The Court already said it.
16 MS. FOWLIE: Okay.
17 THE COURT: Yes. I put it in with any contact with
18 law enforcement.
19 MS. FOWLIE: Gotcha.
20 THE COURT: Because it makes more sense there.
21 MS. FOWLIE: Thank you.
22 THE COURT: All right. Anything else from Probation?
23 MS. FOWLIE: No, Your Honor.
24 THE COURT: Government, anything else --
25 MS. McSHAIN: Not from the government.
1 THE COURT: -- as far as conditions even though I

2 know that was not your request, but --
3 MS. McSHAIN: Nothing further. Thank you.
4 THE COURT: All right. Defense, anything else?
5 MR. GEVIRTZ: Nothing, Your Honor. Thank you, Judge.
6 THE COURT: All right. There were not appeal rights
7 waived here, were there?
8 MS. McSHAIN: He did not waive appellate rights.
9 THE COURT: Right. Sir, you have a right to -- you
10 have a -- no. Talk to your client.
11 (Brief pause.)
12 THE COURT: Is there anything, Counsel?

13 MR. GEVIRTZ: No.
15 MR. GEVIRTZ: He was asking me about the emergency
16 situation passport. And I said we will go through Probation
17 and then come see Your Honor if the situation occurs.
18 THE COURT: All right. Sir, you have a right to
19 appeal this Court's decision. If you wish to have another
20 court, a higher court look at it, you disagree with it, you
21 must file notice within 14 days. You will speak to your lawyer
22 about it. He can give you further direction on how you can
23 file that appeal. Do you understand?
25 THE COURT: Anything else from the government?
1 MS. McSHAIN: No. Thank you.

2 THE COURT: Anything else from defense?
3 MR. GEVIRTZ: No. Thank you.
4 THE COURT: Anything else from Probation?
5 MS. FOWLIE: No, Your Honor.
6 THE COURT: Good luck to you, sir. It's up to you as
7 to how this defines you. All right. Thank you.
8 CERTIFICATE
9 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true,
10 correct and complete transcript of the proceedings had at the
11 hearing of the aforementioned cause on the day and date hereof.
12
13 /s/TRACEY D. McCULLOUGH November 7, 2019
14 Official Court Reporter Date
United States District Court
15 Northern District of Illinois
Eastern Division
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Sentencing Memos For Beena Patel

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

Sentencing Memos For Beena Patel

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Case: 1:17-cr-00297 Document #: 141 Filed: 11/27/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1387

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

DEFENDANT BEENA PATEL’S SENTENCING POSITION PAPER

II. Corrections in the PSR

Page 11 paragraph 55 There is a misspelling. The city in India, “Dalod” should be

III. Objections to the Offense Level Computation in the PSR

addressed in the PSR in pages 8 through 10.

A. Base Offense Level (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1623 (a) 14

The Defendant agrees with the Base Offense Level of 14.

B. Specific Offense Characteristics

(Substantial Interference Enhancement under USSG Sec. 2J1.3(b)(2)) 3

interference with the administration of justice.”

“substantial interference with the administration of justice.”

information provided by Agent Harris,

is subject to an increase of 3 levels.”

grand jury (Count One)?

C. Multiple Count Adjustment (Section USSG Sec. 3D1.4) 2

3D1.4(a), (b) and (c) is warranted.

“….(d) Special Instruction

(1) In the case of counts of perjury or subornation of perjury arising from

“…Separate proceedings, as used in subsection (d)(1), includes different proceedings in

Count Adjustment is improper in this particular instance.

D. Offense Level Computation

USSG Sec. 2J1.3(d)(1) or USSG Sec. 3D1.4.

IV. A sentence of probation is an option that is available to the Court

extraordinary circumstances exist: a fine, restitution or community service.

advisory guideline calculation, probation would not be available.

V. A sentence of three (3) years of probation is an appropriate sentence in this case.

range is an appropriate sentence.

Perjury is a Class D felony, and it is a serious offense. It is an offense, however, that, at

than necessary to carry out the directives of 18 USC Sec. 3553(a).

appropriately account for those other important factors.

of the crime for which Beena was convicted.

dollars over her natural lifetime.

the Illinois Pension Code, 40 ILCS 5/9-235:

The language, “relating to or arising out of or in connection with his service as an

(2) The history and characteristics of the defendant

her mother were financially supported by Beena’s uncles growing up.

Following college, Beena Patel worked within the banking system.

contributions to her friend’s parents when they were in poor health.

(AIA), the Gujarati Samaj, BAPS, Freedom from Hunger.

respectively. Beena’s acts of kindness in the community are boundless.

A highlight of some of the letters of character are as follows:

Ghanshyam N. Pandey, Ph.D.

Sonal Patel, M.D.

Ambassador Ashok Kumar Attri

Date: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

By: /s/ Donald J. Angelini, Jr.

Donald J. Angelini, Jr.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 17 CR 297

v. Judge Sara L. Ellis

GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

FOREPERSON: Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony

―Oath, Sworn to before the Grand Jury by Defendant Beena Patel on

of its investigation, defendant chose to willfully obstruct it by lying. Defendant not

As described below and established at trial, in August 2014 Sivasubramani

Defendant was an active participant in Cook County’s seminal problem of “pay-to-

prosecutions.” As a result of defendant’s crimes, and her continued unwillingness to

accept responsibility for those crimes, the government seeks a within-guidelines

sentence of 30 months’ imprisonment.1

In light of defendant’s decision to proceed to trial, the following is a summary