United States District Court, S.D. New York
September 22, 2005.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ALAN BOND, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ALAN BOND, Defendant.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: LEONARD SAND, Senior District Judge
OPINION AND ORDER
On February 11, 2003 this Court sentenced Alan Bond to a term
of imprisonment of 151 months covering the case before this Court
(01 Cr. 1140 (LBS)) at which Bond was convicted after a jury
trial and another case before Judge Griesa (99 Cr. 1235(TPG/LBS))
in which Bond pled guilty following his conviction in the case
The sentence reflected our best judgment as to what was
appropriate in light of the magnitude of the crime, the harm
inflicted on the employee benefit plans victimized by Bond's
criminal actions, and Bond's blatant perjury at his trial. There
is no need to detail now those painful circumstances.
Approximately two months after his sentencing Bond began
providing information to the United States Attorney's Maryland
Office regarding the investigation of Nathan Chapman, a Baltimore
investment banker and pension fund manager. Mr. Bond had been led
by Chapman to invest improperly funds of public and private
employee benefit funds in a Chapman-related company. "The overall
loss to the DEN-MET [the employee benefit trust] was $5.652
million, of which $4.724 was allocated to the State Pension
System and the balance to Banker's Trust." Letter of Marc L.
Mukasey, Assistant U.S. Attorney, S.D.N.Y., September 16, 2005,
p. 9. Bond testified at the Chapman trial on July 7-8, 2004 and
was able to furnish important evidence, which was corroborated by
documents, with respect to the DEN-MET transactions. Chapman was
convicted and was sentenced to 90 months incarceration.
The Maryland United States Attorney's Office has written a
letter describing Bond's role and testimony at the Chapman trial
on the basis of which the U.S. Attorney for the S.D.N.Y. how now moved pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b)(2)(B)
for reduction of Bond's Sentence.
There is no question that this Court has jurisdiction to reduce
Bond's sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b)(2)(B) which provides that:
Upon the government's motion made more than one year
after sentencing, the court may reduce a sentence if
the defendant's substantial assistance involved:
. . .
(B) information provided by the defendant to the
government within one year of sentencing, but which
did not become useful to the government until more
than one year after sentencing.
Bond began proffering within one year of sentencing and the
information did not become useful to the government until his
testimony more than one year later.
We are not impressed by the amount of time that Bond has
devoted to his cooperation because this entailed little hardship
to him, but we do take into account the fact that as a
consequence of his role in the Chapman case he was "housed in the
`supermax' (a maximum security state prison) in Maryland for
approximately four months. While in this facility he was locked
in a jail cell for approximately twenty hours per day. Further,
even while at FCI Ft. Dix he was housed in a `low' facility
despite a security classification which qualified him to be in a
prison camp." Memorandum in Support of Motion, p. 19.
The Chapman case was a high profile case in Maryland and Bond's
cooperation was the subject of considerable media attention which
raised valid concerns for the welfare of his family. Supporting the motion is extensive documentation of his
behavior as a model prisoner rendering considerable services as a
teacher and helper to his fellow inmates. Bond received nine
certificates of appreciation at Ft. Dix, where he is now
incarcerated, for such services as building a computer lab,
teaching classes, developing adult education programs and being
the "house electrician."
The motion is further supported by the many family members,
friends and neighbors who renew the views they ardently expressed
at the time of his initial sentencing. Mrs. Bond writes
poignantly of the adverse impact which Bond's incarceration has
had on their children.
Giving weight to all of the showing that has been made of
Bond's cooperation, rehabilitation, and good deeds, we conclude
that a reduction of sentence is warranted. We cannot, however,
lose sight of the extensive nature of Bond's criminal behavior
and the enormous harm which it caused.
On balance we reduce the combined sentence of 151 months by 60
months i.e., to 91 months. Bond has already served approximately
39 months. He will therefore have to serve an additional 52
months, a not insignificant period of time but one which we
believe will appropriately reflect all the circumstances brought
to the Court's attention.
Amended judgments will be entered reflecting this reduction of
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.