Defendant John Le Bron at 3006 River Grove Drive, Tampa, Florida CONTROLLED
SUBSTANCE - POSSESSION FELONY
Count One for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1): that the defendant
knowingly and willfully possessed gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, also known as
"GHB," as
charged; and Second: that the defendant possessed the substance with the
intent to distribute it.

PUBLIC RECORD EXCERPTS

Florida Limited Liability Company from Florida state web site
EZ INVESTMENTS, LLC
Principal Address
3006 RIVER GROVE DRIVE
TAMPA FL 33610
Mailing Address
3006 RIVER GROVE DRIVE
TAMPA FL 33610
Registered Agent Name & Address
LEBRON, JOHN
3006 RIVER GROVE DRIVE
TAMPA FL 33610
Manager/Member Detail
Name & Address
Title MGR
PATRICIA KUMER
2604 AUBURN AVE.
TAMPA FL 33614
Title MGR
LEBRON, JOHN
3006 RIVER GROVE DRIVE
TAMPA FL 33610

****************************

01/18/2006 39 ACCEPTANCE OF PLEA of guilty and adjudication of guilt re:
count(s) one of the Indictment as to John Lebron.
06/02/2006 59 JUDGMENT as to John Lebron (1), Count(s) 1, Probation: 60
Months; Fine: Waived; Special Assessment: $100. Signed by Judge on
6/2/2006. (cl-m) (Entered: 06/02/2006)
06/01/2006 53 MEMORANDUM in support by John Lebron re 52 Memorandum in
support amended memorandum of law in support of objections and requests for
mitigation
excerpts -
b. The Defendant is a drug addict who delivered small quantities at
the street level. The Defendant has finally admitted that he has a
substance abuse problem and has sought out professional help to
assist his recovery to avoid substance abuse in the future.
1.) The Defendant began smoking marijuana on a weekly basis
at age 16. He began drinking to excess at age 18 during his
college years. He began abusing cocaine, vicodin, and
ecstasy at age 18.
2.) The Defendant was a street level GHB dealer who sold
twice to supplement his own growing cocaine, alcohol,
ecstasy, and vicodin and marijuana addictions.
d. The Defendant has suffered from mental health issues. He has
treated and prescribed Alprazolam for
anxiety attacks.

####################

U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa)
CRIMINAL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 8:05-cr-00075-EAK-EAJ All Defendants

Case title: USA v. Lebron
Date Filed: 02/23/2005
Date Terminated: 06/02/2006
Assigned to: Judge
Referred to: Magistrate Judge

Defendant (1)
John Lebron
LEAD ATTORNEY
Designation: CJA Appointment

Pending Counts
Disposition
CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE - POSSESSION
(1) Probation: 60 Months; Fine: Waived; Special Assessment: $100

Highest Offense Level (Opening)
Felony

Terminated Counts
Disposition
None

Highest Offense Level (Terminated)
None

Complaints
Disposition
None

Third Party Custodian
John Lebron represented by John Lebron
8410 Twin Lakes Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33614
PRO SE

Plaintiff
USA represented by
U.S. Attorney's Office


Date Filed # Docket Text
02/22/2005 1 INDICTMENT returned in open Court as to John Lebron (1) count
1. (RFM) (Entered: 02/23/2005)
03/01/2005 Arrest of John Lebron (CM) (Entered: 03/01/2005)
03/01/2005 3 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge :INITIAL
appearance as to John Lebron held on 3/1/2005 (Tape #digital) (CM) (Entered:
03/02/2005)
03/01/2005 5 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge :ARRAIGNMENT
as to John Lebron (1) Count 1 held on 3/1/2005. Defendant pled not guilty.
(Tape #digital) (CM) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
03/01/2005 6 PRETRIAL discovery order and notice as to John Lebron Status
Conference set for 3/18/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom 17 before Judge on
3/1/2005. (CM) (Entered: 03/02/2005)
03/02/2005 8 ARREST WARRANT returned executed on 2/28/05 as to John Lebron.
(RFM) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
03/02/2005 9 ORDER Setting Conditions of Release as to John Lebron (1)
$20,000 Non-surety. Signed by Judge on 3/1/2005. (RFM) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
03/02/2005 10 Non-Surety BOND entered as to John Lebron in amount of
$20,000.00.. (RFM) (Entered: 03/03/2005)
06/02/2006 59 JUDGMENT as to John Lebron (1), Count(s) 1, Probation: 60
Months; Fine: Waived; Special Assessment: $100. Signed by Judge on
6/2/2006. (cl-m) (Entered: 06/02/2006)

##############

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
:::
v. : Case No. 8:05-CR-75-T-17-EAJ
:::
JOHN LEBRON :
____________________________________:

DEFENDANT JOHN LEBRON'S AMENDED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW, the undersigned counsel, on behalf of the Defendant, JOHN LEBRON,
and files this his amended sentencing memorandum due to undersigned counsel's
failing to
notice a scrivener's error in the base offense level calculation (all
changes are in bold face type)
and in support states as follows:
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Case History
1. The Defendant was indicted on February 22, 2005.
2. Undersigned counsel was appointed on March 1, 2005 to represent the
Defendant pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act.
3. The Defendant pled guilty to the indictment on December 15, 2005 before
the Honorable Magistrate Judge.
4. This Honorable Court accepted said plea on January 18, 2006.
5. Sentencing is scheduled for 10:00 am, Friday, June 2, 2006.
6. The United States Probation Office reports that the Defendant's total
offense level is twenty-one (21) with a criminal history category of I.
7. Thus, according to Probation, the Defendant's federal sentencing
guideline
range is thirty-seven (37) months to forty-six (46) months.
II. THE EFFECT OF BOOKER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A. Pursuant to the United States Supreme Court opinion in Booker v. United
States of
America, 125 S.Ct. 785 (2005), the Federal Sentencing Guidelines were deemed
unconstitutional because their mandatory nature had judges, not juries,
finding
facts that the enhanced sentence of a defendant. The Supreme Court ruled
this
conflicted with the Sixth Amendment jury right of a defendant. As a result,
the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines are now "advisory" rather than "mandatory".
III. FEDERAL SENTENCING GUIDELINES ARE PRESUMPTIVELY UNREASONABLE
A. The Sentencing Reform Act created the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The
purposes of Act were set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a). It is in this
section
that federal district courts are directed to:
"impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary,
to comply with . . . the need for the sentence imposed (A) to
reflect the seriousness of the offense; (b) to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant; and (D) to provide the
defendant with needed educational or vocational training,
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most
effective manner."
B. Further, Section 3553(a) directs federal district courts to consider the
following
set of factors when fashioning a defendant's sentence:
"(T)he nature and circumstances of the offense and the history
and characteristics of the defendant, the kinds of sentences
available, the need to avoid disparities among defendants with
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct
and the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense."
C. United States Supreme Court Justice Breyer gave renewed importance to
these 18
U.S.C. 3553(a) factors without the mandatory nature of the guidelines in his
majority opinion. Specifically, on page 17, Justice Breyer stated:
"(D)espite the absence of Section 3553(b)(1), the Act continues to
provide for appeals from sentencing decisions (irrespective of
whether the trial judge sentences within or outside the Guidelines
range in the exercise of his discretionary power under Section
3553(a) . . . Section 3553(a) remains in effect, and sets forth
numerous factors that guide sentencing. Those factors in turn
will guide appellate courts, as they have in the past, in
determining whether a sentence is unreasonable." (Id. at 17).
D. The Sentencing Commission took the Section 3553(a) factors into account
when it
created the original Federal Sentencing Guidelines. However, the factors
were
never given the substantial weight that the Commission intended in
determining a
federal defendant's sentence prior to January 12, 2005. In a critical
selfevaluation
the Sentencing Commission published its own assessment in 2004 -
Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the
Federal
Criminal Justice System is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform. The
assessment disputes the notion that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines avoid
"unwarranted sentence disparities".
IV. PRE-SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT OBJECTIONS
A. The Base Offense Level is Twenty-Four (24) Not Twenty-Six (26)
1. United States Probation is holding the Defendant responsible for six (6)
gallons of Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB) instead of the three (3)
gallons of GHB that the United States of America and undersigned
counsel agreed to hold the Defendant responsible for.
2. Undersigned counsel verified the above statement in subsection one (1)
via
teleconference with Assistant United States Attorney as
recently as May 30, 2006 and during several meetings and phone
conferences throughout the pendency of this case.
a.) AUSA advised that he told Probation the same during his
pre-sentence discussions.
3. Three (3) gallons of GHB is equivalent to 99.924 kilograms of marijuana.
The Drug Quantity Table provides for a base offense level of twenty-four
(24) for offenses involving at least 80 kilograms of marijuana but less than
100 kilograms of marijuana.
a.) GHB is not specifically listed in the Drug Quantity Table. Thus,
according to USSG Section 2D1.1, the Court must use the Drug
Equivalency Tables in order to convert GHB into its marijuana
equivalent to obtain the proper base offense level for this
Defendant. One milliliter of GHB is equivalent to 8.8 grams of
marijuana.
b.) Three (3) gallons of GHB is equivalent to 11,355 milliliters of
GHB. 11,355 milliliters is equivalent to 99,924 grams of
marijuana. 99,924 grams of marijuana is equivalent to 99.924
kilograms of marijuana.
c.) 99.924 kilograms of marijuana is a base offense level twenty-four
(24) - At least 80 kilograms but less than 100 kilograms of
marijuana.
4. Therefore, the Defendant's base offense level is a twenty-four (24) and
his criminal history category is I.
a.) The Defendant qualifies for a two base offense level reduction
under USSG Section 2D1.1(b)(7) because he meets the criteria as
set forth under subdivisions (1) through (5) pursuant to USSG
Section 5C1.2.
1.) This reduction makes the Defendant's base offense level
twenty-two (22).
b.) The Defendant qualifies for a three base offense level reduction
under USSG Section 3E1.1 (a) and (b).
1.) This reduction makes the Defendant's total base offense
level nineteen (19).
c.) The United States Government has filed a motion for a downward
sentencing departure pursuant to USSG Section 5K1.l in the
amount of four (4) levels.
1.) As this Court is aware, once the Government files a motion
for substantial assistance, it is within the province of the
Court to make a final determination as to the amount of
decrease in the Defendant's base offense level.
2.) The Defendant's total base offense level is a maximum
fifteen (15) if the Court accepts the Government's motion
and recommendation or lower - should the Court rule in
favor of the Defendant's request for a decrease of seven (7)
levels in his base offense level.
B. The United States Sentencing Guidelines are not "Presumptively
Reasonable"
1. Based upon the above analysis, it can be argued in good faith that the
guidelines, at least as applied to the Defendant, if not all defendants, are
"presumptively unreasonable". The Defendant bases his argument on the
information found in the Commission's 2004 written assessment, the
Commission's 1995, 1997, and 2002 reports to Congress on federal
sentencing policy, and the district court sentencing data it releases every
year via its Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics (available to
undersigned counsel and all other interested parties at the Commission's
own website, www.ussc.gov.).
2. The Federal Sentencing Guidelines are per se unreasonable when
compared against the backdrop of Section 3553(a). The goals of the
Sentencing Reform Act are being undermined by significant portions of
the guidelines.
3. The guidelines are only one of seven equally important factors that a
district court must consider in determining a sentence that is sufficient,
but
not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes of sentencing
under section 3553(a)(2).
C. Federal Guidelines Should Not Be Given Substantial Weight
1. The United States Sentencing Commission has prepared a "post-Booker"
manual for judges, probation officers, and lawyers that advises judges to
five "substantial weight" to the advisory guidelines.
2. This Court should not give "substantial weight" to the sentencing
guidelines because in doing so such a sentencing practice makes the
guidelines just as binding as they were before Booker, thus violating both
the Sixth Amendment and the interpretation of section 3553, adopted by
Booker's remedial majority.
3. The Defendant urges the Court to analyze the Guidelines equally along
with the other factors listed under 3553 in order to determine a sentence
that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to punish the Defendant
for
his actions.
V. Mitigating Sentencing Factors
A. Since the guidelines are advisory, the Court is free to utilize 18 U.S.C.
Section
3553(a)(1), (3)-(7) in fashioning a reasonable sentence for the Defendant.
These
sections require that the sentence of a federal defendant reflect: 1.) the
nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history; and 2.) the characteristics of
the
defendant; and 3.) the kinds of sentences available; and 4.) the need to
avoid
unwarranted disparity among defendants with similar records and similar
crimes;
and 5.) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
B. A federal sentence should be sufficient but not greater than necessary to
meet the
purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a)(2). The Defendant believes the
following
mitigating factors, while not objections, should be taken into consideration
by this
Court when fashioning a sentence that is reasonable.
1. The Defendant points out that prior to Booker, the guidelines prohibited
a
court's reliance on certain offender characteristics for downward
departures (see: U.S.S.G. Section 5H1.4 - drug and alcohol abuse, Section
5H1.12 - lack of youthful guidance or disadvantaged upbringing, 5H1.2 -
education and vocational skills, 5H1.5 - employment record and 5H1.6 -
family ties and responsibilities).
2. The Defendant suggests this Court designate a base offense level of
twelve
(12) and a criminal history category of I. Specifically, the Defendant
respectfully requests a combination sentence of house arrest and
incarceration at a halfway house or 366 days imprisonment.
a. The Defendant implores this Court to recognize that this type of
sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply
with the purposes of sentencing under section 3553(a)(2).
3. In support the Defendant cites the following mitigating factors:
a. The Defendant has suffered punishment outside of that punishment
traditionally thought of by the penal system. Because one of the
purposes of sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
3553(a)(2)(A) is "to provide just punishment", the defendant will
be sufficiently punished by the loss of valuable rights - such as the
right to vote, serve on juries, hold public office, the right to bear
firearms and other federal benefits for a period of up to five (5)
years. Further, the Defendant will have the stigma of being a
convicted felon for the rest of his life.
b. The Defendant is a drug addict who delivered small quantities at
the street level. The Defendant has finally admitted that he has a
substance abuse problem and has sought out professional help to
assist his recovery to avoid substance abuse in the future.
1.) The Defendant began smoking marijuana on a weekly basis
at age 16. He began drinking to excess at age 18 during his
college years. He began abusing cocaine, vicodin, and
ecstasy at age 18.
2.) The Defendant was a street level GHB dealer who sold
twice to supplement his own growing cocaine, alcohol,
ecstasy, and vicodin and marijuana addictions.
a.) In the United States of America v. Williams, 78
F.Supp2d 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1999), the district court
concluded that the relatively minor nature of the
defendant's prior and current drug convictions
warranted a departure from the career guideline
because in each prior drug conviction the defendant
was a street seller and on the lowest level of the
distribution chain and the most easily replaced in
the drug network he was involved in.
d. The Defendant has suffered from mental health issues. He has
treated with Alprazolam for
anxiety attacks.
e. The Defendant is the father to a newborn baby. He and his
fiancé, Trisha Kumer, gave birth to their child on the 10th.
g. The Defendant is unlikely to commit a crime in the future.
1.) The Defendant graduated from Chamberlain High School
in Tampa, Florida on June 9, 1997. Mr. Lebron ranked 92
in his class of 514 with a 3.5740 grade point average.
2.) The Defendant is a licenced real estate broker and has his
sales license. He is employed by First Choice Realty.
3.) The Defendant has accepted his drug problem and desires
professional assistance to avoid substance abuse and
alcohol in the future.
4.) The Defendant has tremendous family support to assist his
acclimation to private life once his punishment concludes.
5.) The Defendant is a new father who understands that his
self-destructive lifestyle must end and that he must accept
responsibility like an adult in order to properly care for his
newborn child and fiancé.
h. The Defendant's cooperation reaches a level of super acceptance of
responsibility. Upon his arrest, the Defendant immediately waived
his right to a lawyer and began cooperating with the government
which lead to additional arrests and indictments. This is especially
significant because the Defendant's sister is a criminal defense
attorney.
i. The Defendant again reasserts his above stated objections to the
PSI as mitigating factors (should this Court not rule in his favor in
the form of his objections) that should be used as mitigating factors
in calculating a reasonable sentence sufficient but not greater than
necessary to achieve the goals of the Sentencing Reform Act.
VI. Requests for Recommendations and Miscellaneous Issues
A. The Defendant respectfully requests a sentence of a probation or a
combination of
halfway house and house arrest.
1.) Should this Court designate a base offense level that prohibits the
above,
then the Defendant requests a sentence of 366 days or a prison camp
qualifier.
B. The Defendant respectfully requests that this Court find on the record
that there
are no public safety factors (PSF) in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report
(PSI).
1. A PSF disqualifies a defendant from a prison camp designation.
C. The Defendant respectfully requests FCI Coleman if he receives a sentence
of
incarceration that prohibits his attending a prison camp and further for the
Court
to state on the record the reasons why it is making said recommendation. The
Bureau of Prisons welcomes judicial recommendations (see BOP Program
Statement 5100.07) and by statute it is required to consider them. 18 U.S.C.
Section 3621(a)(4)(B).
1. Coleman FCI has RDAP.
2. Coleman FCI is within a half day's drive of the Defendant's children,
family, and friends.
3. Coleman FCI offers vocational and apprenticeship opportunities.
4. Coleman FCI offers UNICOR.
a. If Coleman FCI is unavailable, then the Defendant desires an
institution as close to Tampa, Florida as possible that has RDAP.
b. Bureau statistics show that it honors judicial recommendations in
the overwhelming majority of cases in which the defendant
qualifies for a particular recommended institution.
C. The Defendant requests that he be placed in the Bureau of Prison's
Residential
Drug Abuse Program (RDAP). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3621(e), the
Bureau of Prisons offers a program to fight drug addiction.
1. The Defendant believes that he must fight his drug addiction in order to
lessen his chances of recidivism.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, the undersigned counsel respectfully requests this Court to grant
the
requested relief.
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney for Defendant Lebron

##############

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 8:05-cr-75-T-17-EAJ
JOHN LEBRON
NOTICE OF ESSENTIAL
ELEMENTS AND PENALTY
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
The essential elements for Count One for a violation of 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) are
as follows:
First: that the defendant knowingly and willfully possessed
gamma-hydroxybutyric acid, also known as "GHB," as
charged; and
Second: that the defendant possessed the substance with
the intent to distribute it.
PENALTY
Count One carries a maximum sentence of twenty (20) years imprisonment, a
fine
of $1,000,000, a term of supervised release of at least three (3) years, and
a special
assessment of $100, said special assessment to be due on the date of
sentencing.
FACTS
A DEA cooperating defendant ("CD") identified John Lebron as a customer for
3 gallons of GHB. Specifically, on January 27, 2005, while DEA was in the
presence of the CD, Mr. Lebron called the CD and requested to obtain
approximately 3 gallons of GHB from the CD. On the same date, in Tampa,
Florida, DEA then utilized the CD to conduct a controlled transaction with
Mr. Lebron for 3 gallons of GHB. After Mr. Lebron obtained the 3 gallons of
GHB from the CD he was arrested. Post-Miranda, Mr. Lebron admitted to
obtaining the 3 gallons of GHB and stated that he was going to deliver/sell
the GHB to another individual.

Respectfully submitted,
United States Attorney