UNITED STATES v. COLBURN (2020)

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

UNITED STATES of America, v. Gregory COLBURN, et al., Defendants.

Criminal Action No. 19-10080-NMG

Decided: September 21, 2020

Eric S. Rosen, Alexia R. De Vincentis, Justin D. O'Connell, Kristen A. Kearney, Stephen E. Frank, Leslie Wright, United States Attorney's Office MA, Boston, MA, Karin Michelle Bell, U.S. Attorney's Office - MA, Worcester, MA, for USA. David S. Schumacher, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, P.C., Boston, MA, Jordan R.C. Kearney, Pro Hac Vice, Hooper, Lundy Bookman, P.C., San Francisco, CA, Patric Hooper, Pro Hac Vice, Hooper, Lundy & Bookman, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants Gregory Colburn, Amy Colburn. Brian T. Kelly, Joshua C.H. Sharp, Lauren Maynard, Nixon Peabody LLP, Robert L. Sheketoff, Boston, MA, Donald J. Campbell, Campbell & Williams, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant Gamal Abdelaziz. Stephen H. Sutro, Pro Hac Vice, Duane Morris LLP, San Francisco, CA, Christian G. Kiely, David E. Meier, Melinda L. Thompson, Todd & Weld, Boston, MA, for Defendants Diane Blake, Todd Blake. Chase A. Scolnick, Pro Hac Vice, Jennifer L. Keller, Pro Hac Vice, Reuben Camper Cahn, Pro Hac Vice, KELLER/ANDERLE LLP, Irvine, CA, for Defendant I-Hsin Chen. Eoin P. Beirne, Mark E. Robinson, R. Robert Popeo, Cory S. Flashner, Mathilda McGee-Tubb, Peter Charles Mulcahy, Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC, Boston, MA, for Defendant Elisabeth Kimmel. Jack W. Pirozzolo, Sidley Austin LLP, Boston, MA, Joan M. Loughnane, Pro Hac Vice, Sidley Austin LLP, New York, NY, John C. Hueston, Pro Hac Vice, Newport Beach, CA, Marshall A. Camp, Pro Hac Vice, Brittani A. Jackson, Pro Hac Vice, Hueston Hennigan LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant William McGlashan, Jr. Allen J. Ruby, Pro Hac Vice, Jack P. DiCanio, Pro Hac Vice, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Michael K. Loucks, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Marci Palatella. Andrew E. Tomback, Pro Hac Vice, McLaughlin & Stern, LLP, New York, NY, Michael Kendall, Yakov Malkiel, White & Case, LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant John Wilson. Megan A. Siddall, Seth B. Orkand, Tracy A. Miner, Miner Orkand Siddall LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Homayoun Zadeh. Matthew L. Schwartz, Pro Hac Vice, Sara K. Winik, Pro Hac Vice, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP, New York, NY, Nicholas C. Theodorou, Foley Hoag LLP, Martin G. Weinberg, Martin G. Weinberg, PC, Michael Pabian, Michael Pabian Law Office, LLC, Boston, MA, for Defendant Robert Zangrillo.

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

Defendant Douglas Hodge pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and honest services mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and one count of money laundering conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). He agreed to pay bribes totaling $850,000 over the course of more than a decade to secure the admission of two of his children to the University of Southern California and two of his children to Georgetown University. On February 7, 2020, this Court sentenced defendant Hodge to, inter alia, nine months’ imprisonment.

On March 13, 2020, this Court allowed Hodge's motion to extend his self-surrender date until May 4, 2020. On April 23, 2020, Hodge moved to modify his sentence to impose home confinement pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) because of concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic. This Court agreed to postpone the self-surrender date of defendant Hodge again until June 30, 2020, but declined to convert his sentence to home detention. Hodge subsequently surrendered to FCI Otisville in New York on June 23, 2020, a week early.

Defendant has now moved pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) to modify his sentence to impose home confinement or, in the alternative, reduce his sentence because of concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the harsh prison conditions imposed to prevent its spread and an unrelated family emergency. The government opposes the motion on several grounds including 1) the conditions imposed have been necessary and successful in minimizing the spread of COVID-19 within FCI Otisville and 2) the defendant chose to surrender to prison early, knowing that he would be quarantined for at least 14 days. With leave of Court, defendant has filed a reply in support of his motion to modify sentence which the Court has considered.

The COVID-19 pandemic is an unprecedented and continually evolving cause of concern and the Court is cognizant of the particular risk of transmission in penitentiary facilities. As explained at defendant's sentencing and, notwithstanding the current public health crisis, there are good reasons why the period of incarceration imposed is warranted by the defendant's criminal conduct in this case. The Court will, therefore, deny defendant's motion. The Court is, however, sensitive to Hodge's family emergency. If the circumstances surrounding that emergency worsen and/or the public health crisis does not continue to abate within the next few months, the Court will entertain a motion to reconsider.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the motion of defendant Douglas Hodge to modify sentence (Docket No. 1434) is DENIED without prejudice.

So ordered.

GORTON, United States District Judge

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network