Miles Guo Court Documents · Doc 834
法庭文件 · 2026-04-17 · 30 页 · John F. Kaley · Joshua L. Dratel · Melinda Sarafa
reply sentencing memorandum30-page briefFatico hearing requestAmendment 826acquitted conduct exclusionloss amount disputeDoar Rieck KaleyDratel & Lewis
Reply Sentencing Memorandum submitted on behalf of Miles Guo by defense counsel in United States v. Guo, 23-CR-118 (AT), Doc 834. Filed 2026-04-17 in response to the governments sentencing submission. Companion to Doc 822 (initial defense sentencing memorandum filed 2026-03-21).
摘要
Reply Sentencing Memorandum
This 30-page document is the defendant's Reply Sentencing Memorandum filed April 17, 2026 by John F. Kaley (Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack), Joshua L. Dratel (Dratel & Lewis), and Melinda Sarafa (Sarafa Zellan PLLC) on behalf of Miles Guo in United States v. Miles Guo, 23-CR-118 (AT). It replies to the government's April 7, 2026 sentencing memorandum (case-doc-833).
Introduction and Preliminary Note on Government's Rhetorical Strategies (Section I)
The reply opens with a preliminary discussion of what the defense characterizes as the government's rhetorical strategies in its sentencing memorandum, including the framing of victim harm and the characterization of the defendant's conduct.
II. The Government Has Not Established Any Reliable Loss Amount; A Fatico Hearing Is Required
The defense argues:
- A. Transactional volume ≠ actual loss: The government's $1.3 billion figure reflects transactional volume rather than actual loss. The figure totals inflows to G-Series entities without tracing analysis or accounting for offsets.
- B. Seizure-warrant affidavits insufficient: The government's reliance on seizure-warrant affidavits does not obviate the need for a United States v. Fatico, 579 F.2d 707 (2d Cir. 1978) hearing — those affidavits were created for the limited purpose of probable cause for seizure and did not address the loss-amount methodology required at sentencing.
- C. Restitution position reflects ascertainment challenges: The government's position that restitution is impracticable reflects the same difficulties that beset its loss-amount calculation — if loss cannot be ascertained for restitution, the same problems prevent its use for Guidelines enhancement.
III. Acquitted Conduct Must Be Excluded from the Loss Calculation
The defense argues:
- A. Section 1B1.3(c) and Amendment 826: The government's reading of U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(c) would nullify Amendment 826 (the November 2024 amendment) that bars use of acquitted conduct for Guidelines calculations. The defense argues the amendment must be given full force.
- B. GTV Private Placement does not "establish" the offenses of conviction: The GTV-related conduct on which Mr. Guo was acquitted does not "establish" the offenses of conviction within the meaning of any potentially applicable Guidelines exception, and thus cannot be used to support the loss enhancement.
IV. Disavowal of Victim Status by Thousands of Investors Is Directly Relevant to Loss
The defense argues that:
- The disavowal of victim status by 6,512 Himalaya Exchange members, 324 Hamilton Opportunity Fund investors, and more than 1,000 individual supporters who have directly contacted counsel is directly relevant to the loss calculation;
- A person who does not consider themselves victimized has not suffered a loss for Guidelines purposes;
- The government's contrary argument that subjective victim status is irrelevant to the Guidelines analysis misstates the framework.
V. The Magnitude of the Loss Enhancement Requires Heightened Scrutiny
The defense argues that the 30-point loss enhancement — adding decades to the sentencing range — requires more than preponderance-of-the-evidence proof. Citing Second Circuit precedent, the defense maintains that an enhancement of this magnitude must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, and that the government cannot meet that standard.
VI. The Government's Sentencing Comparables Support a Sentence Well Below 30 Years
The defense addresses the comparables the government invokes in arguing for a 30-year sentence, contending that:
- The empirical data on fraud-case sentences nationally — particularly in the Southern District of New York — supports a sentence well below 30 years;
- The comparables the government cites are inapt because of factual or procedural differences;
- The mean and median sentences in similarly situated cases are far below the Guidelines range computed here.
VII. The Government's Remaining Arguments Do Not Support a 30-Year Sentence
- A. CCP campaign relevance: The defense argues the CCP's campaign against Mr. Guo is directly relevant to sentencing under § 3553(a), and the government's effort to discount it ignores documented evidence of the targeting and its convergence with the conduct in this case;
- B. Government's claims: The defense addresses the government's specific claims about Mr. Guo's conduct, character, and the offense seriousness, responding to each.
Relief Requested
The reply renews the defense's request for:
- A sentence well below the Guidelines range;
- A Fatico hearing on disputed loss-amount facts;
- Exclusion of acquitted conduct from Guidelines calculations;
- Full consideration of the victim-disavowal evidence and CCP-targeting context.
查看原始文档 ↗