`
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00585-JSR
`
`Document145_
`
`Filed 03/14/25
`
`Page1of5
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`Defendant.
`
`-against-
`
`
`
`IMURAZ TAVBERIDZE,
`
`23-cr-585-03 (JSR)
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.J.
`
`As expressly contemplated by the Court’s Opinion dated March
`
`10, 2025, United States v. Tavberidze, No. 23-cr-585-03, ECF No.
`
`143,
`
`4
`
`(Mar.
`
`10,
`
`2025),
`
`the Government was
`
`accorded a
`
`full
`
`opportunity at
`
`the
`
`sentencing hearing of defendant Teimuraz
`
`Tavberidze on March 13, 2025 to raise objections to the Court’s
`
`preliminary decision that
`
`section 3H1l.1(b)
`
`of
`
`the Sentencing
`
`Guidelines
`
`(“Guidelines”)
`
`imposes
`
`a constitutional penalty on
`
`defendants who proceed to trial
`
`rather
`
`than pleading guilty
`
`sufficiently early to save the Government the burden of preparing
`
`for
`
`trial.
`
`The Government,
`
`
`taking full
`
`advantage
`
`of
`
`this
`
`opportunity, offered numerous objections over
`
`the course of
`
`a
`
`lengthy colloquy,! but
`
`the Court was unpersuaded and, confirming
`
`
`
`1 Had the Government also wanted to submit written objections, it
`
`would, under the Court’s Individual Rules, simply have had to make
`a joint telephone call to Chambers prior to sentencing, see Jed S.
`Rakoff,
`Individual Rules of Practice, Rule 2, but it chose not to
`do so.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00585-JSR
`
`Document145_
`
`Filed 03/14/25
`
`Page2of5
`
`
`the analysis in its Opinion, reduced the defendant’s offense level
`
`by one point.
`
`Three items arising during the argument deserve, however,
`
`brief
`
`
`further
`
`comment. First, during the argument
`
`the Court
`
`
`inadvertently referred to the “EBighth” Amendment right to trial.
`
`As was obvious to all convened, what
`
`the Court meant
`
`to refer to
`
`was the Sixth Amendment right to trial. The Court reiterates its
`
`holding that
`
`section 3E1.1(b)
`
`of
`
`the Sentencing Guidelines
`
`violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial.
`
`Second,
`
`the Government argued that because section 3H1.1 is
`
`phrased as a benefit to a defendant who pleads guilty in a timely
`
`fashion, it should not be viewed as a penalty. But this argument
`
`
`ignores the fact that for several decades now, more than ninety-
`
`seven percent of federally-charged criminal defendants have pled
`
`
`
`guilty, and nearly all in sufficiently timely fashion to receive
`
`the full three-point reduction under sections 3E1.1(a)
`
`and (b).
`
`The reality,
`
`therefore,
`
`is that the three-point reduction is the
`
`overwhelming norm,
`
`
`and only those few defendants who dare to
`
`exercise their constitutional right to go to trial fail
`
`to receive
`
`it. Moreover,
`
`
`the chief beneficiary of
`
`the third point under
`
`section 3E1.1(b)
`
`is,
`
`as
`
`its language suggests,
`
`the Government.
`
`Thus,
`
`in reality, section 3El1.1(b) operates as a penalty that is
`
`
`imposed only on those few defendants who choose to go to trial and
`
`
`primarily for the benefit of
`
`the Government. Applying the one-
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00585-JSR
`
`Document145_
`
`Filed 03/14/25
`
`Page3of5
`
`point
`
`reduction thus ensures
`
`that all defendants are treated
`
`equally,
`
`regardless of whether or when they choose to exercise
`
`their Sixth Amendment right.
`
`Third, at argument,
`
`the Government made a point of claiming
`
`that a Second Circuit case, United States v. Whitten, 610 F.3d 168
`
`
`(2d Cir. 2010), established that section 3EF1.1(b) does not violate
`
`the Sixth Amendment. That is not correct. In Whitten,
`
`the defendant
`
`was indicted on both capital and non-capital counts and proceeded
`
`to trial, where a jury voted to convict him across the board and
`
`impose the death penalty. At
`
`
`the sentencing phase of
`
`the death
`
`penalty proceedings,
`
`the defendant
`
`read aloud an allocution of
`
`
`remorse in order to “support the mitigating factors of remorse and
`
`acceptance of
`
`responsibility and to counter
`
`
`
`
`aggravating factor of
`future dangerousness.” Id.
`
`the prosecution’s
`
`at 177. The
`
`Government,
`
`in turn,
`
`responded during its summation with the
`
`oa
`following statements:
`
`
`
`he
`that
`the very moment
`up until
`[The defendant]
`addressed you last week has done everything he could to
`
`escape responsibility for his crimes. He has an absolute
`right to go to trial, put
`the government
`to its burden
`of proof,
`to prove that he committed these crimes, but
`he can’t have it both ways. He can’t do that
`[and]
`then
`say I accept responsibility.
`.
`.
`. That’s not acceptance
`of responsibility. That’s a manipulative criminal saying
`what he has to,
`saying what he knows you want
`to hear
`when it’s in his interest to say it.
`
`Id. at 194 (emphases omitted). “In purpose and effect,” the Second
`
`Circuit noted,
`
`
`the Government “used [the defendant’s] demand for
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00585-JSR
`
`Document145_
`
`Filed 03/14/25
`
`Page4of5
`
`trial
`
`to
`
`evidence
`
`lack of
`
`remorse
`
`and
`
`refusal
`
`to
`
`accept
`
`responsibility” and as “support
`
`for
`
`future dangerousness.” Id. at 195. Accordingly,
`
`the aggravating factor of
`
`the Second Circuit
`
`reversed the
`
`defendant’s
`
`death
`
`sentence,
`
`holding
`
`that
`
`the
`
`Government’s statements violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment
`
`right to trial.
`
`It is true that the Second Circuit also noted in passing that
`
`“the
`
`federal
`
`Sentencing Guidelines
`
`treat
`
`acceptance
`
`of
`
`responsibility (usually via a plea) as a basis for leniency, but
`
`do not provide a harsher sentence for failure to plead” and that
`
`section 3E1.1 “does not contemplate increased punishment
`
`for a
`
`
`failure to cooperate.” Id. at 195-96 (citations and quotation marks
`
`omitted). But
`
`these passing comments were dicta at best, having
`
`nothing to do with the Court’s holding in the case. Moreover,
`
`nowhere in the appeal, did the defendant raise, even remotely,
`
`the
`
`Sixth Amendment challenge to section 3E1.1(b) set forth in this
`
`Court’s recent Opinion.
`
`Indeed, Whitten did not consider in any
`
`way any challenge to the Guidelines calculations. It thus has no
`
`bearing on the Court’s decision.
`
`For these and the other reasons set forth at the sentencing
`
`hearing,
`
`this Court confirms once again its holding that section
`
`3E1.1(b) violates the Sixth Amendment right to trial.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`
`
`Case 1:23-cr-00585-JSR
`
`Document145_
`
`Filed 03/14/25
`
`Page5of5
`
` New York, NY eAKA
`
`3 (Lt) 2025
`JED S. RAKOFF, U.S.D.d.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
