Draft

Outline a sentencing memo that asks for a number

Builds a § 3553(a)-organized sentencing memo outline that leads with the person, concedes the offense honestly, and anchors the court to one specific sentence with named variance grounds.

About 18 minintermediateCriminal defense, Litigation

Your prompt4,906 characters

Still to fill in: Court and sentencing regime, Defendant background, Offense conduct and Guidelines, The sentence you will request

RoleYou are a criminal defense lawyer who has written hundreds of sentencing memoranda and read the government's response to every one. You lead with the person and never the guideline, you concede what the PSR already proves instead of fighting it, and you refuse to ask for "a downward variance": you ask for a number and repeat it until the court can say it back.What I needA sentencing-memo outline for Court and sentencing regime. The defense will request the sentence below and will have to defend it against the government's response.InputsDefendant: Defendant background Offense and Guidelines: Offense conduct and Guidelines Sentence requested: The sentence you will request Letters, reports, comparators on hand: Letters, reports, and comparators on hand Court and sentencing regime: Court and sentencing regimeHow to work this1. Open with the person: scenes with names and dates, not adjectives. Any sentence that could describe a different defendant comes out. 2. Put the honest account of the offense before any argument. Accept what the PSR proves, in its terms, and flag anywhere the outline drifts toward minimizing. 3. Answer § 3553(a)(1) through (a)(7), or the Court and sentencing regime analog, factor by factor under its own heading. Do not collapse (a)(2)(A) through (D) into one paragraph. 4. For disparity, supply real numbers: JSIN parameters and result, district statistics, or comparators with docket numbers and judges. If Letters, reports, and comparators on hand has none, say so and tell me what to pull. 5. Assign each support letter to exactly one variance ground with the line worth quoting. Letters carrying no ground come out of the index. 6. State the Guidelines calculation accurately, then name the specific respect in which this defendant sits outside what that guideline measures. 7. Carry the same number from introduction to conclusion, and propose supervision conditions and a restitution schedule at the same specificity, including conditions I should oppose.Close with these four sections, every time, without being askedAssumptions I made. Every factual, legal, and strategic assumption, marked [verify] or [safe]: whether you assumed federal § 3553(a) rather than a state regime, whether you accepted the Guidelines calculation as given, whether you treated the PSR as final. Where this is weakest. The two or three variance grounds the government will hit hardest, named by heading, and why each is exposed: thin documentation, a fact the PSR contradicts, data that cuts both ways. What only you can decide. Options with tradeoffs, never a bare flag. At minimum: request a number below the probation officer's recommendation (anchors the court low, risks reading as unserious and costing credibility on the rest) or match it and fight on conditions (credible, but surrenders the ask); and file the medical and family material publicly (a judge who reads those letters in open court is moved by them) or move to seal (protects the children and the diagnosis, but the record loses its force). What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: the final PSR, this judge's variance rate in fraud cases, a JSIN pull with my parameters, the government's position if I can get it early.Output formatA Roman-numeral outline: Introduction; The Defendant; The Offense and Post-Offense Conduct; The Guidelines; The § 3553(a) Factors, one sub-heading per factor; The Sentence Requested and Variance Grounds; Supervised Release; Restitution; Conclusion. Under each, 2–5 bullets carrying actual content: the fact, the quote, the number, the authority. End with an exhibit index tying each exhibit to the one ground it supports.Never do this- If this outline would fit any defendant convicted of any offense, it is too generic. Rebuild it from this defendant's dates, diagnoses, and numbers. - No hedging filler. Cut "arguably," "it should be noted," and "it depends." Do not tell me to consult an attorney. I am the attorney filing this. - Every case, guideline provision, and Commission figure must come from my inputs or be marked [UNVERIFIED - check before filing]. Never invent a comparator case, a docket number, or a JSIN median. - Where you do not know this district's practice or this judge's tendencies, say you do not know. Do not smooth over the gap with fluent prose. - Do not pad. A three-ground variance argument beats a seven-ground one. Length is not value.Before you answer- Does the first substantive section describe a person, or an offense? - Did every § 3553(a) factor get its own heading and its own answer? - Is the disparity argument carried by data, or by the word "disparity"? - Is any comparator case or statistic sitting here unmarked and unverified?

Adds driver's-seat tunes: options instead of answers, questions before work, every citation flagged. Your values come with it.

Pressure-test it

Makes the AI switch hats and attack its own answer.

The government's sentencing response is being drafted right now by an AUSA who has the PSR, the plea agreement, and every prior statement the defendant made. Write it as the AUSA would write it. Name the three variance grounds you would attack, and for each, the specific fact from the record or the Commission data point you would use to gut it. Then rewrite those two or three sections so they survive the hit without overstating a single fact.

Go deeper

Pushes the work further once the basics are right.

Two other documents reach the judge before the hearing, and neither one is written by me. Build them: (a) a letter-of-support plan: five to seven categories of writer, the single variance ground each letter should carry, what the writer must say from personal knowledge, and a short instruction paragraph I can send them verbatim; and (b) a one-page allocution outline for the defendant, covering what to say, what he must not say, how long to speak, and how to answer if the judge interrupts with a question about the loss amount.

Before you run it

What to gather first

The final PSR, or the draft plus your objections
Guidelines calculation, offense level, criminal history category, and range
Co-defendant sentences and any JSIN or district data you have pulled
Support letters, expert reports, treatment records, and pay stubs
The exact sentence you intend to request, and what you will accept

Watch for

Sentencing memoranda are public filings. Diagnoses, family details, and children's names go on the docket unless you move to seal or redact first. Decide before you draft, not after.
The disparity factor collapses without data. Verify any Commission statistic, JSIN median, or comparator case against the actual source; the model will produce plausible docket numbers that do not exist.
State sentencing regimes vary enormously: structured grids, mandatory minimums, pure discretion. Confirm the governing statute and the real range before relying on any § 3553(a)-shaped analysis.
Anything in the outline that contradicts the PSR will be quoted back by the government. Reconcile against the final PSR, not the draft.
Supervised-release conditions are easier to shape before imposition than to appeal after. Propose specific language rather than blanket objections.

What comes back

A Roman-numeral outline I-IX: Introduction, The Defendant, The Offense, The Guidelines, the § 3553(a) factors one sub-heading at a time, The Sentence Requested with variance grounds, Supervised Release, Restitution, Conclusion, with 2–5 content-bearing bullets under each heading and an exhibit index tying every exhibit to the single ground it supports. Closes with Assumptions / Where this is weakest / What only you can decide / What would make this better.

See an example of what you’ll get

I. Introduction. Carlos Reyes is a husband, the father of a ten-year-old and a seven-year-old, and for eleven years a machinist at Northrop who was promoted to lead in 2021. Over fourteen months he submitted false invoices to that employer totaling $187,400. He repaid $147,400 before he was indicted, pleaded guilty three weeks after arraignment, and has been in weekly trauma therapy since February 2024. The defense requests twelve months and one day, three years of supervised release, restitution of the $40,000 balance, and 200 hours of community service. III. The Offense. No minimization. Mr. Reyes created seventeen invoices from a vendor shell he controlled, approved them himself under the authority the promotion gave him, and did it for fourteen months. He does not contest the loss figure in PSR ¶¶ 22–29. The breach of trust described in ¶ 31 is accurate. V.F. § 3553(a)(6): unwarranted disparities. - JSIN, §2B1.1, loss band $150,000-$250,000, CHC I, FY2022-FY2024, W.D. Wash.: median custodial sentence 14 months; 31% received non-custodial sentences. [UNVERIFIED - re-run the query and screenshot the parameters before filing.] - *United States v. Phan*, No. 2:22-cr-00187 (W.D. Wash. 2023) (Lasnik, J.): $214,000 loss, no priors, 12 months. Closest comparator; same judge. - *United States v. Whitfield*, No. 2:23-cr-00094 (W.D. Wash. 2024) (Pechman, J.): $158,000 loss, 6 months. Cite with the distinction stated: Whitfield cooperated, Reyes did not. Do not let the government draw it first. VI. Variance grounds. 1. Aberrational conduct with a documented onset. First false invoice December 1, 2023: twenty-seven days after Miguel Reyes died, three days after Mr. Reyes cleared out his brother's apartment. Dr. Estrada's evaluation (Ex. C) ties the PTSD onset to that date. 2. Pre-indictment repayment of 79% of the loss, from his brother's life insurance proceeds. Ex. E, with the wire confirmations. 3. Family circumstances: sole earner; school counselor letter on both children (Ex. F). Exhibit index (each exhibit, one ground). A: wife, ground 3. B: supervisor 2014–2020, character (§ 3553(a)(1)). C: Dr. Estrada evaluation, ground 1. E: repayment records, ground 2. F: school counselor, ground 3. *Dropped:* the four soccer-parent letters say the same thing four times; keep one, attach the rest only if the court asks. --- Assumptions I made. Federal § 3553(a) governs and the Guidelines are advisory [safe - W.D. Wash.]. The calculation you gave me is the one the final PSR will carry: Level 16, CHC I, 21–27 months, three-level acceptance reduction intact [verify - probation has not signed off, and a loss-amount objection moves the range]. Restitution owing is $40,000, the $187,400 loss less the $147,400 repaid [safe - arithmetic from your inputs]. Dr. Estrada's evaluation comes in at sentencing without a reliability fight [verify]. No mandatory minimum and no § 5K1.1 motion [safe - you said so]. Where this is weakest. Ground 1 is the exposed one. The scheme ran fourteen months and continued well past the acute grief window the Estrada report describes; the government will argue that a bereavement theory explains December but not the following November. Consider narrowing the claim to onset rather than duration. Second exposure: the JSIN figures in V.F. carry an [UNVERIFIED] tag into a filing, and a disparity section the government can check and you cannot costs more than it earns. What only you can decide. Two calls. The number. Twelve months and a day sits below the JSIN median of fourteen and earns good-conduct credit that a flat twelve does not. It anchors the court low, and if probation recommends twenty-one months the gap hands the AUSA a free line about an unserious request. Fifteen months concedes the anchor and buys credibility you can spend on the restitution schedule and the supervision conditions instead. The record. File the Estrada evaluation and the school counselor's letter on the public docket, where the judge reads them in open court and they do the most work, or move to seal, which keeps a PTSD diagnosis and two children's names off a public docket and costs the material its force at the hearing. That is a family decision as much as a legal one, and it is not mine to make. What would make this materially better. Ranked by impact: (1) The final PSR with probation's recommendation: the entire ask is calibrated against a number I do not have. (2) A JSIN pull you have run yourself with the parameters screenshotted, so V.F. goes in clean. (3) Judge Lasnik's variance record in §2B1.1 cases, if the federal defender's office tracks it. (4) The government's sentencing position, if the AUSA will give it to you before the filing date.

Why this prompt is built the way it is

## Framework 1. **The person first, the offense second.** Section one is who this defendant is: scenes with names and dates, not adjectives. A paragraph that could describe anyone gets cut. 2. **Concede before you argue.** The judge has read the PSR and the government's version. Accept what is proven, in the government's own terms, before asking for anything. Minimization costs more than it buys. 3. **Every factor by its number.** § 3553(a)(1) through (a)(7), each answered separately. Do not collapse (a)(2)(A)-(D) into one paragraph about "the seriousness of the offense." 4. **Disparity needs numbers.** Factor (a)(6) requires Commission JSIN data with the query parameters, district statistics, or named comparator cases with docket numbers and sentencing judges. A disparity argument without data is worse than no disparity argument. 5. **Route every letter to one ground.** Each support letter advances exactly one variance theory, gets quoted in one line, and appears in the exhibit index tagged to that theory. A letter that supports nothing comes out. 6. **State the Guidelines accurately, then explain the miss.** Give the calculation, then the specific respect in which this defendant sits outside what that guideline was built to measure. 7. **Ask for one number.** The same number in the introduction and the conclusion. Propose supervised-release conditions and a restitution schedule at the same level of specificity. 8. **Never make an argument the PSR refutes.** The government will quote it back.