1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
No. 1:13-cr-00130
vs. Hon. Janet T. Neff
U.S. District Court Judge
FREEMAN CARL REED,
a/k/a “BUCK,”
Defendant.
_____________________________/
MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE OF THE SENTENCING DATE
Defendant Freeman Carl Reed, through counsel, respectfully requests that the
sentencing date be continued from the presently-set date of August 13, 2014 for ninety
days, or such other date after that convenient to the Court. Sentencing in this case has
been postponed twice, once as a scheduling matter for the Court and once at the request
of the undersigned to provide time to respond to certain matters in the Presentence
Report. Counsel realizes that a third continuance, particularly at the last minute like this,
is likely to be looked upon with initial disfavor but it is respectfully submitted that it
should be granted because of the unusual circumstances stated below, which are quite
promising to those who have lost money.
Pursuant to the Local Rules, counsel informs this court that AUSA Clay Stiffler
does not join in this motion and prefers that the sentencing go forward as scheduled.
We advance two reasons for this request which we state summarily and then
explain.
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 8 Page ID#908
2
First, there is a substantial probability that additional restitution will become
available to make those persons who lost money whole if an additional ninety days is
allowed.
Second, counsel was informed today by email that the government wishes to
present 45 exhibits and testimony of an IRS agent concerning those exhibits all by way of
disputing the tax return computations which resulted in the tax return amounts on the tax
returns which have been finalized by Buck and Renee Reed and which, in accordance
with the instructions of the government, have been completed, signed, and sent to Special
Agent Birdsong. (See, Freeman Carl Reed’s Memorandum in Support of His Motion for
Variance or Downward Departure, and Submitted Generally for Sentencing Purposes,
Docket No. 111, p. 3, herein referred to as “Reed’s Memorandum in Support.”) Counsel
simply cannot prepare in the short amount of time between now and next Wednesday to
refute the testimony and the exhibits, and cannot secure the attendance of the accountant
who prepared the tax returns at issue and have him present at a hearing next Wednesday
ready to present our position on the tax returns and to justify the figures which are hugely
lower than the government computations due and owing.
As to the first reason, time to make restitution, Buck Reed has already paid
$150,000.00 toward restitution by cashier's check deposited with the Clerk of this Court
on today’s date (See, Exhibit A, a copy of the check and cover letter sent to this Court.)
As Buck Reed’s sentencing brief, filed two days ago on August 6, 2014 indicates, he had
been working on getting parties together to arrange funding for a movie which is going to
be made in Europe. (Reed’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 2-3.) The contract took longer
than anticipated but because of his efforts in working on the contract, now consummated
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 8 Page ID#909
3
as a movie production contract for a children’s movie to be produced in Europe, he has
earned a payment for his efforts. (Id.) Of that payment, he has already been paid
$150,000.00, a sum that arrived in the trust account of the undersigned yesterday, and
that money on his instruction was converted to a cashier’s check and sent to the Clerk of
the Court (attached here as Exhibit A.) As indicated, it has been received by the Court.
(Id.) The undersigned expects to have an additional $80,00.00 to deposit with the Court
by next Tuesday. For the particulars of the arrangement by which this money was earned
by Buck Reed, see Exhibit B attached hereto which is a letter which in part describes the
contract which resulted in this payment to Buck Reed.
Exhibit B, the letter, also explains why there is a substantial probability that in an
additional 90 days, Buck Reed will earn substantially more money that can be used to
make further restitution.
The restitution that has already been made, the undersigned submits, should be
sufficient demonstration that Buck Reed is serious about making repayment.
Opportunities to do so come when they do and while it would certainly be better if this
could have been done sooner, everyone is better off if Buck Reed gets the time to make
the effort to earn more restitution money, particularly since the representation that he is
likely able to do so is supported by the fact that he has already made one significant
payment and the indication is that more will be coming. It is pointed out in this regard
that the government routinely delays sentencing of a defendant who has pleaded guilty if
that defendant’s testimony is needed in the trial of a co-defendant. Delaying sentence for
any legitimate purpose is not extraordinary, the delay sought is not for an extended
period, and the reason for it is unarguably worthwhile.
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 8 Page ID#910
4
The second reason why a postponement is sought is that just today the
undersigned received notice that the government plans to call an IRS agent and through
that agent introduce forty-five (45) exhibits. These will be offered, apparently, in an
attempt to refute the tax computations and the amounts stated to be due and owing on all
of the tax returns that Buck and Renee Reed have prepared and now have submitted to
the IRS. As is shown in Buck Reed’s Sentencing Memorandum, he has prepared returns
for all but two of the years for which returns were outstanding, meaning that he has
prepared, signed, and submitted returns for the years 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008,
2010, 2012, and 2013 (the tax return for 2005 was previously completed by another
accountant and has been filed), and they have filed the years 2010 and 2012.
(Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum, p. 6.) The government claims that Buck Reed
owes $565,509.00 in federal income taxes and interest and penalties of $568,219.00
(Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, Docket No. 109, p. 1), coming to a total of
$1,133,728.00. (Id.) However, according to Buck Reed’s accountant’s calculations, the
total amount of federal income taxes owed is $21,836.00, although this figure does not
include penalties or interest. (Sentencing Memorandum, Exhibit B.) Regardless of the
amount of penalties and interest, the amount of taxes due and owing alone differs by an
amount of $546,673.00.
Clearly, the large difference in tax computations should be sorted out and, in
fairness to Buck Reed, time should be allowed for his accountant to review the exhibits
which were announced this morning but not apparently deliverable until Tuesday of next
week for that review to commence. And even if they could be delivered sooner than next
Tuesday, as AUSA Stiffler indicated he would try to do, when we pointed out this
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 4 of 8 Page ID#911
5
morning that receiving these exhibits next Tuesday was way too late for a hearing the
next day, there is in either event not enough time to prepare a counter-witness, meaning
Buck Reed’s accountant. Moreover, Buck Reed’s accountant, William Timothy, has
other things on his schedule that would preclude him being ready by next Wednesday.
Mr. Timothy is the primary caregiver for his wife who suffers from dementia, along with
other health problems. He is located in Pleasant Grove, Utah and simply cannot come to
Grand Rapids to testify on this short notice for a sentencing hearing next Wednesday,
August 13, 2014.
Neither Buck Reed nor his counsel mean to suggest that the government is
springing exhibits at the last minute unfairly. The government’s tax computations were
set forth in the final presentence report which was prepared June 9 and revised July 30,
2014. (Government’s Sentencing Memorandum, Docket No. 109, p. 1.) Its tax figures
were arrived at, thus, and available to Buck Reed as of June, 2014. (Id.) However, Buck
and Renee Reed and their accountant did not complete work on the tax returns they have
filed until last week, at the beginning of August 2014. (See, Reed’s Sentencing
Memorandum, Exhibit B.) Therefore, the government did not know of the large
difference in the tax computations until then. Equally, the defense did not know of the
large difference in tax computations until the finalized tax returns last week could be
compared to the government’s much higher figures. If the government is going to contest
the figures presented on these tax returns on the now finalized Reed tax returns, the
defense should have a reasonable time to prepare a rebuttal and to have the Reed’s
accountant who prepared these returns available in court to defend them. This simply
cannot be done by next Wednesday.
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 5 of 8 Page ID#912
6
Obviously, it will not require the defense 90 days or anything like that amount of
time to review the forty-five exhibits announced today by the government and to prepare
a defense to the figures proposed by the government as allegedly bolstered by the fortyfive
exhibits, and certainly with even a two week extension that preparation could be
completed and a date could be found for the accountant to be present. However we
submit that because of the promise of more restitution we respectfully ask for the full
ninety-day postponement.
If this court is not inclined to grant the large postponement of ninety days but is
inclined to grant the shorter extension to prepare a refutation of the government’s
presentation once the exhibits are disclosed to the defense, we respectfully inform the
Court that counsel commences a trial in the Middle District of Georgia on September 2,
2014 which is scheduled to last five days, commences a trial in state court in New York
on September 16, which is scheduled to last four days, and commences a trial in tax court
in Boston on September 29, which is scheduled to last three days, and counsel alerts this
court that those settings are unfortunately immutable. In addition, Mr. Timothy, Buck
Reed’s Utah-based accountant, is unavailable from August 22 – 29, 2014, as his wife will
be undergoing brain surgery.
In conclusion, the undersigned recognizes that Buck Reed has had years to make
the restitution that he is now making. It could well be wondered why this is happening
now. While this is a fair concern, we respectfully submit that it should be overridden
given the stakes for the persons whose money was lost. The best argument for this
continuance, in light of the demonstrated restitution already made as that reinforces the
probability of future restitution, is the statements found in the Amended Presentence
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 6 of 8 Page ID#913
7
Investigation Report of the persons who lost money. (Amended Presentence Investigation
Report, Docket No. 113, pp. 15-20.) Surely it is worth waiting one last time if the
potential result is an alleviation of their pain. Buck Reed has met all of his reporting
obligations, is nonviolent, and it is submitted that there is no good reason not to allow this
continuance.
It is also respectfully requested that if the Court is going to delay sentencing for
either of reasons explained above, it consider doing so before the hearing itself.
Whenever the sentencing takes place Buck Reed’s family, some of his business
associates and friends, and even some of those who gave money to the venture, wish to
appear to support him. This request is not intended to be presumptuous or in any way
disruptive of the Court’s need to consider this matter fully, however we point out the
obvious savings and avoidance of inconvenience if this matter can be determined before
people have to get on planes. And again, counsel regrets the last-minute motion here but
counsel was and remains of the view that a request based upon promised restitution
would only be favorably considered by this Court, given the facts of this case, if it was
made after a substantial restitution sum was in hand and had been paid over to the Clerk
of the Court, which despite all efforts to get it done sooner, only occurred this morning.
Dated: August 8, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ John J.E. Markham, II
John J.E. Markham, II
(Mass BBO No. 638579)
Attorney for Freeman Carl Read
MARKHAM & READ
One Commercial Wharf West
Boston, MA 02110
Tel: (617) 523 - 6329
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 7 of 8 Page ID#914
8
Fax: (617) 742 – 8604
jmarkham@markhamread.com
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115 Filed 08/08/14 Page 8 of 8 Page ID#915
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 3 Page ID#916
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 3 Page ID#917
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-1 Filed 08/08/14 Page 3 of 3 Page ID#918
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-2 Filed 08/08/14 Page 1 of 2 Page ID#919
Case 1:13-cr-00130-JTN Doc #115-2 Filed 08/08/14 Page 2 of 2 Page ID#920
No comments:
Post a Comment