United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
A jury returned a verdict against Defendant Jatimothy Walker on July 22, 2014, finding him guilty of the following crimes: (i) Racketeering (RICO) Conspiracy (Count One); and (ii) Murder of Marion Hardy in Aid of Racketeering (Count Three). The Probation Department prepared a Presentence Investigation Report ("PSIR") for sentencing, to which Jatimothy Walker prepared objections. The Probation Department and the Government responded to Jatimothy Walker's objections, see Gov't Resp. (Dkt. 765),  and Jatimothy filed a reply (Dkt. 773). The Court now addresses Jatimothy Walker's unresolved objections.
A. OBJECTION 1
Jatimothy Walker first objects to the statement in the identifying data portion of the PSIR that he has zero dependents. Jatimothy Walker argues that he has eight children.
The Court agrees with the Probation Department's decision to state that Jatimothy Walker has zero dependents. According to the Probation Department, they consider a "dependent" to be someone for whom the defendant is providing over 50 percent support. Jatimothy Walker does not challenge the Probation Department's statement that he is not currently supporting his eight children. Jatimothy Walker also does not challenge the information in the PSIR that all of his children are living with other individuals, which makes sense given his incarceration. See PSIR, ¶ 56. Nor does he challenge the PSIR's conclusion that he was ordered to pay child support for six of the children, but five of those six cases have been closed and the other is not accruing; according to the PSIR, records reflect that there are no child support arrearages. Furthermore, the PSIR expressly states in Paragraph 56 that Jatimothy Walker has eight children; the objection simply raises the issue of whether they qualify as "dependents." The available evidence demonstrates that they are not his dependents.
Accordingly, the Court overrules this objection.
B. OBJECTION 2
Jatimothy Walker next objects to the alias of "J-Money" listed in the identifying data section of the PSIR. Jatimothy Walker argues that he has never used this alias.
The PSIR does not indicate the source of this alias, and the Government has no objection to it being stricken. Accordingly, the Court sustains this objection, and orders this alias stricken from the PSIR.
C. OBJECTION 3
Jatimothy Walker next requests that the following sentence be added to Paragraph 8 of the PSIR: "There was no evidence that Defendant, Jatimothy Walker provided financial assistance or received monies while incarcerated, nor testified or communicated to other members that there are other people in the area and threatened other gang members." The Probation Department responded by removing references to providing financial assistance to incarcerated individuals from Paragraph 8, but declined to remove or include any additional language.
The Court finds that the Probation Department properly refused to include Jatimothy Walker's requested language. Paragraph 8 of the PSIR is an informational overview paragraph describing the activities of the Howard Boys in general. This paragraph does not mention whether an individual member engaged in a particular activity; that level of detail is contained in subsequent paragraphs. Nor does the paragraph purport to attribute all of these activities to every member, or claim that every member did everything recited therein.
Testimony and evidence at trial support the information contained in Paragraph 8, even if Jatimothy Walker did not participate in all of the activities described therein. ...