i know one of them, taylor gibson, was scheduled for sentencing march 27 but i haven't seen anything about it. Maybe it got pushed back?

hopefully she got 20 years

First one was just handed down:

Matthew Greenlee - 20 Years http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1651184

"ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A Fairfax man has been sentenced in federal court to 20 years in prison for providing the heroin that killed a 20-year-old Falls Church woman.

Matthew Greenlee, 23, was sentenced Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria."

ANYONE GOT ANY PICS OF THE DEFENDANTS/GUILTY?

Geez everybody a winner with 20 years, wonder what Skyllar will get, any guesses?

Not saying the guy is innocent, but did the girl willing take the drugs? If i ever died while doing drugs (OD) i would never want the person who sold them to me get in any trouble, unless he KNEW they would kill you.

idontlikethis - you must understand that the minute the feds got involved in this case all of the defendants really drew the short straw in the lottery.

The federal system when it comes to drug charges is draconian and sentences are absurdly long - no parole either.

This is the legacy of the Sentencing Guidelines first promulgated in 1988 - legislation, I might add - driven by Democrats who were (and rightly so) concerned about the variability in sentencing and seeking more consistency and at the same time were concerned about the ravishing impact crack cocaine was then having on our cities.

Bottom line is that anyone facing drug charges before the feds is in deep trouble, especially in the Rocket Docket in Alexandria - hardly a friendly place for defendants.

The wreckage of long prison terms will be long here.

idontlikethis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not saying the guy is innocent, but did the girl
> willing take the drugs? If i ever died while doing
> drugs (OD) i would never want the person who sold
> them to me get in any trouble, unless he KNEW they
> would kill you.


Well you are quit forgiving, please do us all a favor and take alot of them, also try reading the paper once in a awhile instead of the cartoon channel, he did alot more than supply his girlfriend.I am surprised he didnt flee the country knowing what is in store for him...

For sure, I read somewhere that the life expectancy for a 20 + year old white dude in the pen was less than 2 years.

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First one was just handed down:
>
> Matthew Greenlee - 20 Years
> http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1651184
>
> "ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A Fairfax man has been
> sentenced in federal court to 20 years in prison
> for providing the heroin that killed a 20-year-old
> Falls Church woman.
>
> Matthew Greenlee, 23, was sentenced Wednesday in
> U.S. District Court in Alexandria."

dude, that's fucked up. i hate when judges "make an example" of someone because it's unconstitutional. he's getting more time most violent criminals. i feel bad for him because that cold uncompassionate judge just ended the best part of his life. seriously, how many dealers get crazy ass sentences because one of their dumbass addicts ODs? that's totally fucked up.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> trogdor! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > First one was just handed down:
> >
> > Matthew Greenlee - 20 Years
> > http://www.wtop.com/?nid=600&sid=1651184
> >
> > "ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) - A Fairfax man has been
> > sentenced in federal court to 20 years in
> prison
> > for providing the heroin that killed a
> 20-year-old
> > Falls Church woman.
> >
> > Matthew Greenlee, 23, was sentenced Wednesday
> in
> > U.S. District Court in Alexandria."
>
> dude, that's fucked up. i hate when judges "make
> an example" of someone because it's
> unconstitutional. he's getting more time most
> violent criminals. i feel bad for him because
> that cold uncompassionate judge just ended the
> best part of his life. seriously, how many
> dealers get crazy ass sentences because one of
> their dumbass addicts ODs? that's totally fucked
> up.


Wow, surprising. Coming from a guy who says people who smoke pot deserve to die. You would think you would be all for a heroin dealer getting the book thrown at them.

Do you have issues with consistency in your viewpoints?

Tom Tom Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Wow, surprising. Coming from a guy who says people
> who smoke pot deserve to die.

i did? if i did, i doubt it was in all seriousness. do you have a link?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Re: Dead Person in Herndon Area
Posted by: Gravis ()
Date: April 14, 2009 04:49PM


Nick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you knew her, write her name on a joint paper,
> roll it, and smoke it in her honor.

now look what you did, you made me hate your stupid ass and now im completely apathetic to her murder. if she was getting high with you, i think the world is better off with her dead. hopefully someone will put a knife in your chest too.

_________________________________
I'm pro-abortion, not pro-choice.





I can see you trying to wiggle out this on a technicality, but I think the above text speaks for itself.

The point I am more trying to make is that I think it's silly to make such a statement in regards to marijuana use. It would almost lead one to believe you are sheltered, unsocialized, and uninformed.

was that kid a complete moron for disgracing the dead with that comment, and letting the world know she smoked pot? Yes, absolutely.

But your approach lacked tact. That is all. Goodnight.

Gravis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tom Tom Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Wow, surprising. Coming from a guy who says
> people
> > who smoke pot deserve to die.
>
> i did? if i did, i doubt it was in all
> seriousness. do you have a link?

how could you not see this?


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."

Gravis - the judge didn't do much of anything.

The federal system takes a huge amount of discretion away from the judge and frankly gives it to the prosecutor. If the prosecutor can prove the elements of the relevant offenses - or thinks he can readily persuade a jury of the same - the massive sentences prescribed in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines - then the prosecutor can fix the ultimate sentence with remarkable accuracy. Defendants in these situations are just in awful straits. Even a 20 year plea looks good next to going to trial and facing 80 years.

There are limited justifications for a federal judge to deviate from the Guidelines, but they are very limited and the prosecution invariably challenges the deviations on appeal, and no federal judge wishes to be reversed.

This is the law, and the problem is that people only begin to complain in those instances where ordinary people - i.e., middle class suburban types - draw the unlucky straw (here, the death of young suburban women) and catch the attention of the feds, who clearly come in with the attitude that they will fix what local law enforcement cannot. And to the extent they end up sending people away for a third of a lifetime (or more), they do get these folks out of the drug trade.

Given this, I don't understand why anyone would get caught up in any form of drug trade, but we are all fallible.

Probably because it wasn't funny you fucking loser :[

The judge apparently must have some discretion. He only gave ashleigh shade 2 fucking years. hes gonna let all these girls off and fry the guys. fucked up system. equal citizens unless involved in a divorce or being punished by the law, then they're poor innocent girls under the control of these bad guys

losing the lottery Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> idontlikethis - you must understand that the
> minute the feds got involved in this case all of
> the defendants really drew the short straw in the
> lottery.
>
> The federal system when it comes to drug charges
> is draconian and sentences are absurdly long - no
> parole either.
>
> This is the legacy of the Sentencing Guidelines
> first promulgated in 1988 - legislation, I might
> add - driven by Democrats who were (and rightly
> so) concerned about the variability in sentencing
> and seeking more consistency and at the same time
> were concerned about the ravishing impact crack
> cocaine was then having on our cities.
>
> Bottom line is that anyone facing drug charges
> before the feds is in deep trouble, especially in
> the Rocket Docket in Alexandria - hardly a
> friendly place for defendants.
>
> The wreckage of long prison terms will be long
> here.

Amen, been there, done that. People do not seem to understand the mandatory minimums unless they are slammed with one themselves. The fed judges can be the nicest most "compassionate and lenient" person in the world, but they are absolutely bound by law to the sentencing guidelines. They have very small leeway in the sntence range and cannot go under the mandatory sentence unless the US Attorney files a 5K.1 reduction motion,and they will only do that for "substantial assistance" or snitching if you use the lingo of cops, prosecutors and cons.

Few people who have not been in the fed system understand the guidelines, but the math is pretty hard to avoid unless you are a cooperative witness. Anyone who tells you they've been busted with 5 grams of rock, a half key of powder or over 220 lbs of weed and didn't get 5 years federal is a liar or a snitch.

Heroin is a fucked up drug and while all these kids need a good ass kicking,rehab and yes some prison time, it's a colossal waste of money and lives to lock a drug offender like this up for 20+ years. The fed mandatory minimums were enacted in the late 80's with the public outcry over crack in the inner city. These sentences aren't really effective IMO for reducing the demand, it just creates more snitches and made the game more cut throat.

What you get with the mandatory minimums is more shameless snitches who will return to the dope game because they understand the DEA and US Attorneys Office will cut breaks. Google Carlos Lehder or Sammy Gravano to read about some unrepentant fuckheads who were treated like royalty for snitching and then returned to crime. The BOP is full of losers who think and behave just like these two, only on a much lower level.

If I was in Centreville and I was into dope with these people, I owuld throw away my cell phone and maybe move. Or better yet, detox and leave this shit behind while you still have a life to lose.

anyone heard anything new - in the kindest way possible, you just don't get it. WingNut is spot on (and the fact that he appears to speak from experience with the system in such an honest and forthright way should be applauded and not derided).

The power is with the prosecutors in the federal system, period. Judge Brinkema did give Ms. Slade a downward departure, largely because of her troubled background and apparent lack of profit motive in her actions.

But she was only able to do this because frankly the prosecutors were not that keen at throwing the book at this young woman. She plead to a single count of conspiracy - the prosecutors in accepting that were giving her a break - when it comes to drug charges, they likely could have come up with far more charges. In all of this the prosecutors were seeking a sentence of 37-48 months as the guidelines called for. The judge's downward reduction wasn't appealed, so you can be the prosecutors were satisfied with what they did with this relatively "small fish" (and this young woman needs help and I hope she gets it).

I edited a law review piece long ago questioning the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines. A nice, abstract separation of powers argument that ultimately persuaded no one. WingNut's information, on the other hand, is persuasive and his articulation of the problem impresses the hell out of me. We need to question what we are doing locking up people for decades. Even the most conservative law and order types (and I tend to drift toward that direction) realize the draconian sentences are just wrong and serve no one well (except corrections employees and their unions).

I should clarify this it is unlikely that the feds will appeal the sentence. They are not going to fight to throw this individual in jail for an additional 13 months.

Reading the testimony in this case just makes me realize how awful heroin is - but I would guess others could opine far better on this than I could.

I believe the next trail is for Skylar which is set for sometime in May. Who knows maybe these guys know the person who murdered the girl in Herndon. They all will be spending time in jail somewhere in Va.

tragedy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I should clarify this it is unlikely that the feds
> will appeal the sentence. They are not going to
> fight to throw this individual in jail for an
> additional 13 months.
>
> Reading the testimony in this case just makes me
> realize how awful heroin is - but I would guess
> others could opine far better on this than I
> could.

I don't know the particulars of the case of Miss Slade, she may have plead to a reduced or amended charge. Probably she was initially charged with more weight than she pelad to, it is typical for the prosecution to load up as much charges and allegations of weight ( easier to do in conspiracies) in an effort to 1) encourage pleas and/or cooperation and 2) overwhelm the defendant with legal fees and a case that seems unwinnable.

It's highly likely that most of these defendants will cooperate with the feds, most of them were probably sick on dope or probably have little incentive to protect anyone. But I would not venture out to say Slade did snitch without seeing her plea agreement. It could well be she was a minor participant, but the deciding factor in the feds is never the judge, always the weight. Judge Brinkema is by comparison a very lenient judge ( she was still a magistrate when I had my legal hiccups), but she can only do what the US Sentencing Guidelines allow.

Also know that sometimes the sentences that are handed out are crafted to be reduced at a later date after the def provides "substantial assistance" in prosecuting others. Typical reductions are one half to two thirds, so these guys who got the 20 yr spots may be witnesses ( or agree to testify) in someone elses future case and end up with something more like 6 or 10 yrs inside.

The Eastern District of VA is also drasticaly different in its application of the Mandatorys Minimums from Southern District of NY where the prosecutors are much more likely to cut deals. EDVA prosecutors have more resources and a less crowded docket and tend to play more hardball than other big city jurisdictions.


If I can ramble a bit, the mandatory minimums were introduced in 1987 or 88 during the height of crack, and they were voted on by pretty much bipartisan lines in a panic state similar to the one that created Homeland Security and the current TARP funds. Citizens were yelling at their representatives and most Congressman were busy trying to outdo one another and be gangbuster tough guys.
Once a law is on the books, it's pretty difficult to remove and so there it sits.
Sen. Jim Webb is actually doing something pretty ambitious in studying the guidelines and alternatives, but any change will doubtfully be retroactive.

WingNut - you are right about the bi-partisan support when these laws were passed, but the real cap on getting the legislation through was the then very powerful Congressional Black Caucus, a group rightly concerned about what was happening in their neighborhoods. I felt for them because crack was the perfect drug in terms of economics for urban distributors. It was cheap (per hit), super addictive, and super profitable, especially since the high didn't last long and consumers had to continually go out in the market to buy. The folks on Capitol Hill I worked with at the time, even if they were politically very liberal, were just almost to a one exceedingly of law and order mind when it came to drug sentences. I just don't think any of the legislators knew what havoc they were going to wreak, and we weren't prepared as a nation to deal with the public health issues with the use of these drugs. I think they believed that with such long sentences only a very slim and exceedingly irrational segment of the population would engage in drug activity. If that were the case, the long drug sentences might be justified. That has been proven wrong and we are now throwing way too many in jail for incredibly long periods of time. And it has shifted the balance of power in some cases where the prosecutor is virtually the judge and jury as well. This can't be a good thing. I agree with Jim Webb's efforts too...hope he succeeds.

And I concur with all of your other points. I don't practice criminal law and never have - just did some academic work years ago and have kept up with this in an armchair way. Appreciate your input.

In working with the sentencing guidelines when they issued, I was absolutely struck by the mania on drug weight (a key element to the constitutionality argument because in essence the Commission was fixing sentences through weight and other factors as opposed to Congress doing it). I wondered who made the Commission people "God" for a day, all in furtherance of some utopian effort to make certain that everyone would receive the "same" sentence for the "same" conduct. Years and years of people's lives have been litigated over whether a "seedling" is a plant, and how many of them justify massive increases in offense levels.

tragedy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut - you are right about the bi-partisan
> support when these laws were passed, but the real
> cap on getting the legislation through was the
> then very powerful Congressional Black Caucus, a
> group rightly concerned about what was happening
> in their neighborhoods. I felt for them because
> crack was the perfect drug in terms of economics
> for urban distributors. It was cheap (per hit),
> super addictive, and super profitable, especially
> since the high didn't last long and consumers had
> to continually go out in the market to buy. The
> folks on Capitol Hill I worked with at the time,
> even if they were politically very liberal, were
> just almost to a one exceedingly of law and order
> mind when it came to drug sentences. I just
> don't think any of the legislators knew what havoc
> they were going to wreak, and we weren't prepared
> as a nation to deal with the public health issues
> with the use of these drugs. I think they
> believed that with such long sentences only a very
> slim and exceedingly irrational segment of the
> population would engage in drug activity. If that
> were the case, the long drug sentences might be
> justified. That has been proven wrong and we are
> now throwing way too many in jail for incredibly
> long periods of time. And it has shifted the
> balance of power in some cases where the
> prosecutor is virtually the judge and jury as
> well. This can't be a good thing. I agree with
> Jim Webb's efforts too...hope he succeeds.
>
> And I concur with all of your other points. I
> don't practice criminal law and never have - just
> did some academic work years ago and have kept up
> with this in an armchair way. Appreciate your
> input.
>
> In working with the sentencing guidelines when
> they issued, I was absolutely struck by the mania
> on drug weight (a key element to the
> constitutionality argument because in essence the
> Commission was fixing sentences through weight and
> other factors as opposed to Congress doing it). I
> wondered who made the Commission people "God" for
> a day, all in furtherance of some utopian effort
> to make certain that everyone would receive the
> "same" sentence for the "same" conduct. Years and
> years of people's lives have been litigated over
> whether a "seedling" is a plant, and how many of
> them justify massive increases in offense levels.


I completely forgot about the Black Congressional Congresses role in the mandatory minimums, if I remember correctly I think they have done a complete about face and now support their repeal as do Maxine Waters, John Conyers among a few other prominent black congressmen. Conyers and Waters big complaint for years was the "sentencing disparity" between crack and poweder cocaine. 5 grams of the first will enact a 5 yr mandatory, 500 grams of the second will get you the same 5 yr sentence. Thier invalid argument was the drugs are one and the same- though you obviously cannot return rock cocaine to it's powder form. They levelled what I saw as a very wrong-direction approach that blamed "racism" for the disparity (majority of crack offenders=black, powder offenders=white or latin) and almost succeeded in getting the powder mandatory minimum lowered to that of the crack sentences. It would be as equally stupid to argue that because white defendants make up the majority of "white collar crime" cases, there is a racist motive and sentences or prosecutorial targets need to be changed to make the numbers more "equitable".


The mandatorys are tough, but honestly there aren;t so many of those "wrong place, wrong time" victims as opponents will lead you to believe. Most people rat their way out of fed cases and defendants have to decide between being a "prisoner of conscious" or going home early. In my book, you lose the right to complain when given that choice, though I still have a lot of problems with the way conspiracy and criminal forfeiture proceedings work.

Mandatory sentences are a waste of money though,I think justice could easily be as well served by reducing future sentences to 4's and 8's instead of 5's and 10's. They are a great tool for law enforcement in turning defendants into cooperative witnesses, but I think you;d do better by making prison sentences tougher, but shorter.

FYI I understand what you are thinking about "seedlings", I've seen a few cases where guys with over a hundred sprouts got 5 yrs and guys with 100 lbs got 2 or 3.
I think it was corrected at the same time the feds corrected the old "carrier weight" law that would add the weight of the blotter paper or sugar cubes with LSD or even the bottle with liquid PCP to rack up your sentence!