Prosecutor Gary Humble, in a new 10-page motion, says former Sheriff Billy Long should not receive leniency at his sentencing next Wednesday.

He said his action that led to his arrest by the FBI revealed "his avarice, selfishness, disregard for sacred oaths, exploitation of the weak, and supreme arrogance."

Judge Sandy Mattice will set the sentence.

Here is the motion:

Comes the United States of America, by and through James R. Dedrick, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and Assistant United States Attorney Gary S.Humble, and offers the following in aid of sentencing. The 3553(a)

Factors

The court’s goal at sentencing is to “impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary . . . “ (A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for 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 . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In attempting to achieve these goals, Congress has directed the court to consider “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” Id. at §3553(a)(1).In the instant case, the seriousness of the offenses cannot be overstated, particularly when considered in the context of who the defendant was at the time he committed them. As a constitutional officer, elected by the people of Hamilton County as its chief law enforcement officer,he held an especially high position of trust. He was charged with the duty and responsibility to uphold the law. Instead of meeting those duties, he chose to engage in some of the most despicable acts someone in his position could commit. The acts can be generally be categorized as follows:

1. He cornered a citizen at his own business and threatened to use the power of the Sheriff’s Office to make the citizen give him money. (April 3, 2007)2. He gave a Hamilton County’s Sheriff badge to an individual whom he believed was engaging in drug trafficking for the purpose of protecting drug trafficking proceeds. (November 29,2007)3. He gave a loaded gun to a person he knew to be a felon to protect drug trafficking proceeds and warned him that if he had to shoot someone to get rid of it. (December 20, 2007)4. He personally, physically possessed ten kilograms of cocaine with the intent to financially benefit from its distribution. (February 2, 2008)5. He sought to profit from the sale of large quantities of cocaine.Although these acts when committed by a sworn law enforcement officer are staggering, they did not necessarily reach the limits of the former sheriff’s corruption. During the course of the investigation, agents wondered if there was anything the former sheriff would not do. As theinvestigation progressed, the former sheriff never expressed any reluctance to do anything. The onlyconcerned ever expressed by the defendant was an occasional worry that the “feds” might beinvolved. His eagerness to embrace every proffered criminal activity certainly must be consideredreflective of his character and a rebuttal to the evidence offered on his behalf that he was a man ofgood character.The letters offered on the defendant’s behalf by his friends should be viewed through the lens of his criminal conduct. A person of the character and quality that they describe could not, and would not, have done what this defendant did. Obviously, they only saw one side of his character.These character witnesses did not see the corrupt side of the defendant which was in abundant evidence in this case and which was captured on video. While one of his supporters described him as caring and one who treated others as he wished to be treated, this court should not ignore the video tape of the defendant threatening the store owner, whose back was literally up against the wall.While he claims that he made “non-violent statements” (Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum at29), such a claim is certainly open to debate. The defendant ended his threats by saying, “From hereon out there will be action taken to make you understand.” Someone in the shoes of his victim could very reasonably picture armed deputies entering his business and physically closing it down. While this may be economic coercion, there is certainly an element of physical coercion to it as well. Moreover, the defendant’s own statements to the cooperator indicate that he may well have becomeviolent. For example, he says he might need to get “pissed off” and later asserts “I’ll rip his heart out,” referring to the store owner. (See attachment, conversation of November 26, 2008 atapproximately16:32.) He went on to say, “If you p--- me off, I go for the jugular.” (Id.) Such statements are inconsistent with the defendant’s attempted portrayal of himself now. This early episode, in which the defendant personally threatened the store owner with official action, is significant for two reasons. It proves that there was a real victim and that the government did not create all of these crimes. It also proves that the defendant was predisposed to criminal activity intended to generate cash. The incident also highlights that the defendant would use his official position for his personal gain, just as he did throughout this case.In view of all of the above, it is especially disappointing that defendant continues to blame the cooperator for his own criminal conduct. He claims that the cooperator “continued pressing Long to engage in these activities.” (Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum at 30.) He claims that the cooperator “kept pushing him and kept presenting him with opportunities to go a little further.”(Id. at 31.) The defendant, in spite of the 80 law enforcement training certificates and 2185 hours of law enforcement training referenced by defense counsel, claims “he got caught up in the[cooperator’s] persuasion and did not know how to stop.” (Id.)The above statements continue the pattern begun early in this prosecution in which the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his offenses. He claims he was the victim of government overreaching and a manipulative cooperating witness. These claims are an attempt to minimize his conduct and avoid responsibility. The Sixth Circuit has frequently denied defendants an acceptance reduction when they have made statements that have attempted to minimize their criminal conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Surratt, 87 F.3d 814, 821 (6th Cir. 1996) (persistent attempts to minimize and deny criminal conduct in statements to probation). Acceptance of responsibility means “an acceptance without excuses.” United States v. Wallace, 16 F.3d 1223(Table), 1994 WL 43460, at *1-2 (6th Cir. 1994).While he claims he is accepting responsibility for his offenses, the defendant argues that the government’s investigation was unfair and he was entrapped. This is not so. It was not unfair for the government to step in and divert the defendant’s extortion scheme from a real victim to government agents posing as representatives of other victims. The defendant proved that he was a criminal and predisposed to criminal activity before the government stepped in and offered him the opportunity to make more money, albeit illegally. The Sixth Circuit has stated that “[w]here a person is ready and willing to break the law, the mere fact that government agents provide what appears to be a favorable opportunity or participate themselves in the offense itself is not entrapment.” United States v. McLernon, 746 F.2d 1098, 1109 (6th Cir. 1984). “Having crossed the reasonably bright line between guilt and innocence, such a defendant’s criminal inclination has already been established, and the extent of the crime is more likely to be a matter of opportunity than of scruple.” United States v. Montoya, 62 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1996). This Court has reviewed the video of the cooperator’s contacts with the defendant. The United States has previously provided a detailed rebuttal to the defendant’s entrapment and sentencing manipulation claim. (See, United States’ Response to Defendant’s Motion for a Downward Departure and Downward Variance, Court File No.83) The United States will not repeat those facts here. The video clearly shows a defendant eager to embrace any and every form of criminal conduct if the end result of that conduct will generate him some money. All of these actions come at the price of selling his office and betraying the public.The gist of defendant’s supposed mitigating factors are that the cooperator manipulated him,and the government unfairly enticed him, with the opportunity to make money. Neither of these arguments is valid. It is incredible that the defendant, a military and law enforcement veteran, could be pushed into committing these reprehensible crimes against his will. He was in control throughout the investigation; he decided how far he was willing to go. He was, in fact, eager to begin and continue his illegal activities: shaking hands, hugging the cooperator, and praising him for his efforts to make them money. While it is true that the cooperator telephoned the defendant, the defendant called him back and voluntarily traveled to meet with the cooperator. The picture of the defendant stuffing his blue jean jacket with $24,000 in cash at the cooperator’s office on the morning of his arrest should create an indelible impression of corruption on the minds of all who see it. The defendant never expressed any reluctance to engage in criminal activity, only eagerness at the opportunity to profit from his public office. That is not entrapment.

Sentencing Procedure

A defendant’s sentence must be procedurally and substantively reasonable. Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2459 (2007); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 261 (2005); United States v. Carter, 510 F.3d 593, 600 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 594C (2007)). This Court must properly calculate the guidelines range, treat the guideline range as advisory, consider the relevant § 3553(a) sentencing factors, select the sentence based upon facts that are not clearly erroneous, and adequately explain the basis for the chosen sentence. Gall, 128S. Ct. at 597; accord United States v. Madden, 515 F.3d 601, 609 (6th Cir. 2008). The advisory guidelines range is to be the “starting point and the initial benchmark” of the Court’s analysis,because the guidelines promote nationwide consistency. Gall, 128 S. Ct. at 596; accord United States v. Bolds, 511 F.3d 568, 579 (6th Cir. 2007).The Court must give the parties an “opportunity to argue for whatever sentence they deem appropriate,” then must consider the § 3553(a) factors in making an “individualized assessment based on the facts presented,” and “adequately explain the chosen sentence to allow for meaningful appellate review and to promote the perception of fair sentencing.” Bolds, 511 F.3d at 579-80. So long as the court explains why it imposed a particular sentence, the district court need not explicitly address all the defense arguments or explain why alternate sentencing possibilities were rejected.United States v. Gale, 468 F.3d 929, 939-41 (6th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3065 (2007).Thus, the first step at sentencing must be to correctly calculate the guideline range. Then the Court must consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and arrive at a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to afford adequate deterrence, to protect the public,and to provide just punishment for the offense. These factors include the “nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). These factors clearly encompass defendant’s intent, predisposition, and all the facts surrounding the offense.

Recommendation and Conclusions

The defendant does not deserve a downward departure. He should be treated just like any other defendant. His case is not outside the heartland of other extortion and drug trafficking cases involving reverse stings. Reverse stings happen every day and they rarely result in a downward departure. The defendant should receive neither a downward departure nor a variance based upon any alleged entrapment or alleged outrageous government conduct. He clearly was not entrapped and was in fact predisposed to engage in criminal conduct. The defendant’s arguments for a variance along these lines should be treated separately by the Court from other considerations that might justify a variance, such as the fact that this was a reverse sting and that the defendant himself was the only criminal involved in these purported illegal activities. These considerations, however,should not be dealt with under any theory that smacks of government misconduct. The government stayed within the rules of acceptable and necessary investigation.The defendant deserves a substantial term of incarceration. He let down the public and his fellow law enforcement officers. All involved in law enforcement, including this office and federal law enforcement, have suffered as a result of the defendant’s greed and misconduct. That cannot be sugar coated. The idea that a sheriff, who had been a partner with other law enforcement agencies in trying to get guns off of the street, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods, gave a gun to a known felon is especially despicable. It is, perhaps, the ultimate hypocrisy. This conduct showed the defendant’s true character that he was able to otherwise hide from his friends and family. This Court, however, should take note of this true character as it fashions a just sentence. The wounds defendant inflicted on his constituents and law enforcement will take a long time to heal.Unfortunately for the defendant, this Court should make an example of the defendant to deter others who might be inclined to violate their oaths and the public trust. The laws of this country, state, county and city are only effective when they are enforced.Otherwise, they are worthless. Justice requires that the innocent be recognized and that the guilty be condemned. When the law is violated, especially by those charged with the duty to enforce it,that corruption must be exposed and condemned without remorse or hesitation.A law enforcement officer is charged with protecting the weak, the unarmed, and the innocent. It is, in fact, a law enforcement officer’s very raison d’etre. When he violates that sacred trust, he not only profanes his profession, but he threatens the very fabric of our society. There is no greater betrayal of the men and women with whom he serves, and there is no greater betrayal of the men and women for whom he serves. In the instant case, the mercy defendant seeks should be reserved entirely for those who accept responsibility, express remorse, and take steps to repent. The defendant has done none of these outside of his shallow plea of guilty. Instead, he has endeavored to blame others for his own failings. Moreover, he seeks to benefit from his law enforcement background and friends he had while engaged in that profession–friends from whom he hid the real Billy Long. These efforts show a profound lack of personal responsibility and are a much better reflection of his true, fatally-flawed character than the letters from those whom he conned into believing that he was worthy of their support.
Additionally, the defendant’s effort to portray himself as a man of essentially good character,but who could be easily manipulated also shows a lack of responsibility for his conduct. The assumption, however counter-intuitive, is that these events were the first and only criminal episode in what he now argues was an exemplary career. This assumption is that it was only after he got elected to the highest paying job he ever had that his conscience abandoned him. The assumption is that he never before took advantage of his power as a law enforcement officer to obtain some

9personal benefit. The assumption is that he was so unlucky that he got caught the very first time he abused his position of trust. Ironically, the defendant is essentially saying that he deserves a break because he is a corrupt law enforcement officer, rather than a common drug dealer caught in a reverse sting. There is obviously something wrong with this picture. Rather than justifying a reduced sentence because of his law enforcement status, his position calls for a harsher sentence. Unlike the ordinary drug dealer, the defendant had a legal and moral duty to arrest those involved and protect the public. He chose not to. Instead, he chose to profit from his own wrong doing and that of others. His former status as a sheriff is not a mitigating factor. It is an aggravating factor. At the August 15, 2008, hearing, this Court asked why the defendant would commit these crimes with their terrible consequences. The defendant answered that question on video. His true identity – one of avarice, selfishness, disregard for sacred oaths, exploitation of the weak, and supreme arrogance – has now been revealed on video for all the world to see. Like many figures in literature, his character was fatally flawed. Justice, in this case, demands a severe consequence.The Sentencing Guidelines are appropriate and should be followed.

Respectfully submitted,

JAMES R. DEDRICK United States Attorney/s/

Gary S. Humble GARY S. HUMBLE Assistant United States Attorney