Table of Contents
“My attorney suggested I would serve 5 years. By proactively addressing sentencing mitigation, we achieved probation.”
Charge: Mail and wire fraud. False invoices submitted to a customer to cover a failing business. Guilty plea. Service: Sentencing narrative, character reference letter guidance, sentencing package, court preparation. Outcome: His lawyer predicted 60 months. The government asked for 30. The judge imposed probation. No prison.
His lawyer told him to expect 60 months. The government asked the judge for 30. The judge gave him probation. What changed the number was not a legal argument. It was a documented package that told the judge who he was.
The FBI Card That Said "Call Me"
Joe Erickson felt out of sorts the moment he learned authorities wanted to speak with him. He knew he had made bad decisions in his business. To cover a failing venture, he submitted false invoices to a customer. Abusing that trust solved a short-term liquidity problem. Then one day in 2018 he saw a business card from an FBI agent with two handwritten words: "Call me."
He understood he would soon have to answer for what he had done.
Twenty Years of Exposure
He retained counsel and, with our guidance, learned how to hold his lawyer accountable. We wrote his story. He told his attorney he wanted to cooperate with authorities and do everything he could to make things right.
His attorney told him the government was threatening to indict him for mail and wire fraud. He did not know what those terms meant. His attorney explained that the charges exposed him to up to 20 years. If he pleaded guilty and cooperated, the attorney thought he could coordinate a plea agreement pointing toward a five-year sentence.
Wanting to do better, he started researching on Google and YouTube. That research led him to our videos, where he learned that being proactive could change what came next. Without talking to anyone on our team first, he bought our digital course to prepare for sentencing. He read the templates and watched the videos in each lesson.
Then he picked up the phone and called Justin.
What He Did, and What He Couldn't Do Alone
He did not try to absolve himself. He learned the steps to prepare for sentencing and put time in every day. Working with our team to build his life story left him better able to speak for himself in front of his lawyer, his probation officer, and the judge. He was proactive, he collaborated, and he was honest about his conduct in his plea for leniency.
He was also clear about what he could not do alone. He had never been in trouble with the law and did not know the system. He could access the videos, but he needed a mitigation expert to help him put his thoughts into words. Long-form biographical writing for a federal judge was not his strength and not a task he wanted to carry by himself.
The Package the Judge Read
Once he began working with our team, we built a deliberate strategy to help the judge know him. The goal was a package that, by sentencing day, gave the judge a clear sense of how he understood his crime and the damage he had caused, and how his community saw his character.
Our sentence-mitigation team worked closely with him. Before the sentencing date, the U.S. Attorney offered a plea agreement for 30 months, and asked for 30 months at the hearing.
The Government Asked for 30 Months. The Judge Gave Probation.
After the U.S. Attorney's request for 30 months, and after the defense attorney's plea, the judge turned to him. Before imposing the sentence, the judge said how much he appreciated the personal package. He said it gave him a much better perspective, and that the narrative and character reference letters were among the best he had ever received.
Then the judge imposed no prison time.
The Text After the Hearing
He texted Justin after the hearing. His words, verbatim:
"Justin,
All praise to God. They gave me probation. The US Attorney was asking the judge for 30 months.
The judge stated in court he wished he had friends like mine. He said he has read thousands of letters and nine were the best and most sincere he has ever read. Because of those letters and everything I have done since being investigated, the Judge gave me 5 years probation.
My family and I are unbelievably thankful.
I'm still being processed but maybe we can talk this week."
The Outcome
Measure | Result |
|---|---|
Charge | Mail and wire fraud (false invoices to a customer) |
Statutory exposure | Up to 20 years |
Lawyer's early prediction | About 60 months |
Government's request at sentencing | 30 months |
Sentence imposed | Five years probation, no prison |
Judge's comment | Called the narrative and character letters among the best he had received |
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between mail fraud and wire fraud?
Both are federal fraud statutes that turn on the method used to carry out a scheme. Mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341) involves using the mail, including private carriers, to further a scheme to defraud. Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. 1343) involves using interstate wire communications, such as phone, email, or electronic transfers. Prosecutors often charge both when a scheme used more than one method. In this case the conduct involved false invoices sent to a customer, and the government's threatened charges carried exposure of up to 20 years.
Can you get probation instead of prison for mail or wire fraud?
It is possible but never guaranteed. The guideline range, driven by the loss amount and criminal history, usually points toward prison for fraud of any size. A judge can vary below that range, and in some cases to probation, based on the 3553(a) factors and what the defendant documents about who they are and what they have done since the offense. In this case the government asked for 30 months and the judge imposed probation, after reading a documented sentencing package.
How can a defendant hold their own lawyer accountable?
By understanding the process well enough to ask specific questions. A defendant who knows what the government's theory is, what the plea agreement says, what the PSR interview involves, and what mitigation work should be underway can push the attorney to explain and act, rather than waiting in the dark. In this case the defendant learned the steps first, then used that understanding to work with his attorney instead of simply deferring.
Does cooperating with the government reduce a federal sentence?
It can. Cooperation, when it is genuine and useful, can support a lower sentence, sometimes through a formal motion from the government. It is a decision to make carefully with counsel, because it carries obligations and risks. In this case the defendant told his attorney early that he wanted to cooperate and make things right, and that posture was part of how the case moved toward a plea rather than a trial.
Can you prepare for federal sentencing using a course before hiring anyone?
You can start that way. A structured course with templates and lessons can teach a defendant what sentencing preparation involves and what a judge is looking for, which is often more than the defendant has been told. In this case the defendant bought the digital course and worked through it on his own before calling. He then recognized he needed a mitigation expert to turn what he understood into a document a judge would read, which is a common and honest place to land.
Why would a judge impose probation when the government asked for 30 months?
Because the judge weighs more than the government's request. The judge considers the whole person under the 3553(a) factors, and a documented sentencing package, a personal narrative and character reference letters that ring true, gives the court a basis to go below what the government asked. In this case the judge said the narrative and letters were among the best he had received, and imposed probation instead of the 30 months the government sought.
Written by
Justin Paperny
Founder White Collar Advice