United States v. Kravetz (948 F. Supp. 2d 89, 2013)

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM

TAURO, District Judge.

This matter stems from criminal proceedings against codefendants Carolyn Kravetz and Boris Levitin. On July 22, 2010, and November 15, 2010, this court sentenced Kravetz and Levitin, respectively. Both defendants filed sealed sentencing memoranda and letters of support with the court.

These proceedings caught the attention of non-party reporter Jim Edwards, who filed three motions to unseal the defendants’ filings. This court reviewed the filings, concluded that they contained “matters that are predominantly personal to Kravetz and that there is no apparent justification for them general publication,” and denied Edwards’s motions. Edwards then moved to intervene for the limited purpose of appealing this denial.

On January 30, 2013, 706 F.3d 47, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part and vacating in part this court’s denial of Edwards’s motion to unseal. The First Circuit concluded that both the sentencing memoranda and letters of support, whether attached to the memoranda or mailed directly to the court, were judicial records “entitled to a common law presumption of access.” Rather than ordering the documents unsealed, the court remanded to allow this court, in the first instance, to evaluate whether sufficient justification existed to overcome the presumption of access to any of the documents. The First Circuit provided specific guidance on the types of privacy concerns sufficient to outweigh the presumption of access and emphasized a preference for redaction of sensitive materials.

In light of the First Circuit’s opinion, this court has undertaken a review of each sealed document. For the reasons following, this court hereby orders that the documents be UNSEALED as indicated more specifically below. The court has redacted portions of the documents where individual privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access and has in some cases concluded that entire letters shall remained sealed. In keeping with the First Circuit’s mandate, this court has provided specific reasons justifying redaction.

This court hereby orders that:

1. Petitioner Edwards’s Motion to Intervene [# 123] for the limited purpose of appeal is ALLOWED.

2. Defendant Kravetz’s Sentencing Memorandum [# 77] is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. Certain sections of the memorandum contain discussions of Kravetz’s medical history, symptoms, past mental health treatment, and the effect of her medical history on friends and family. The court concludes that Kravetz’s privacy interest in her medical information outweighs the presumption of access, and these matters are redacted. Additionally, the court has redacted the names of certain individuals whose letters of support the court has concluded should remain sealed for reasons outlined below. The court has also redacted the identities of Kravetz’s partner and children as irrelevant, relating to “family affairs,” and having “no direct bearing upon the public’s assessment of the sentences imposed.” Finally, portions of the memorandum describe instances of family members’ illnesses. Kravetz’s family members have compelling privacy interests in these “highly personal” matters, and the court has accordingly redacted them.

3. Defendant Kravetz’s letters of support [# 77-1] are UNSEALED as follows:

A. Serrano’s letter is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted sections detailing Kravetz’s medical treatment.

B. The second letter of support is SEALED. This letter includes detailed discussion of a family member’s ill health and Kravetz’s own medical history. The individuals’ personal privacy interests outweigh the presumption of public access. Because the vast majority of the letter contains information properly sealed, redaction is not feasible.

C. The third letter of support is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The letter contains the identities of minor children and descriptions of family affairs with “no public ramifications.” The court concludes that redacting these sections and withholding the identity of the author properly balances the public and private interests and allows for the greatest disclosure of the letter’s relevant content.

D. Flynn’s letter is UNSEALED.

E. Lenore Kravetz’s letter is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted a discussion of private family affairs.

F. Norman Kravetz’s letter is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted discussions of private family affairs and family members’ illnesses.

G. Arth’s letter is UNSEALED.

H. The eighth letter of support is SEALED. The letter deals predominantly with family affairs, unverified information, and subjective remarks about medical history. This court concludes that the individual privacy interests outweigh the presumption of access. Because the vast majority of the letter contains information properly sealed, redaction is not feasible.

4. Defendant Levitin’s letter of support [# 80] is UNSEALED.

5. Defendant Levitin’s Sentencing Memorandum [# 95] is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted significant portions of the memorandum. These portions detail incidents of domestic violence and other domestic relations affairs. Some portions discuss individuals’ sexual orientation and practices. In total, these incidents risk misuse “to gratify private spite[,] promote public scandal,” or fuel “personal vendettas.” The personal privacy interests at stake outweigh the presumption of public access.

Additionally, the court has redacted substantial information about the health and well-being of third parties and Defendant Levitin. Although Levitin discussed some of his medical conditions in open court at his sentencing, the court concludes that these references did not waive his privacy interest in his medical information. The memorandum provides significantly more detail than he revealed during the hearing. Levitin has a continuing privacy interest in his medical information that outweighs the presumption of access.

6.Defendant Levitin’s letters of support [# 95, Exs. 1^15] are UNSEALED as follows:

A. Exhibits 1-3 are UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted excerpts referencing individuals’ sexual orientation and practices, unverified medical information, incidents of domestic violence, and the medical history of third parties.

B. Exhibit 4 is SEALED. Because this entire letter discusses incidents of domestic violence, redaction is not appropriate.

C. Exhibit 5 is UNSEALED.

D. Exhibits 6-10 are SEALED. These exhibits contain letters from Levitin’s medical providers, including detailed medical testing information. This information is presumptively private, and Levitin did not waive his privacy interest through his disclosures at sentencing.

E. Exhibits 11-20 are UNSEALED.

F. Exhibit 21 is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted materials relating to third parties’ domestic matters.

G. Exhibits 22-26 are UNSEALED.

H. Exhibit 27 is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted materials relating to third parties’ domestic matters.

I. Exhibits 28-29 are UNSEALED.

J. Exhibit 30 is UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted materials relating to the domestic matters and medical history of third parties.

K. Exhibits 31-35 are UNSEALED.

L. Exhibits 36-37 are UNSEALED AS REDACTED by the court. The court has redacted materials relating to third parties’ domestic matters.

M. Exhibits 38-45 are UNSEALED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. THIS CASE IS CLOSED.

REDACTED

UNDER SEAL E-Government Act of 2002

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CAROLYN KRAVETZ

CRIMINAL NO: 08-10251-JLT

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM And MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE

Introduction

Defendant Carolyn Kravetz, through counsel, respectfully submits this Sentencing Memorandum and Motion for a variance from the advisory guideline in connection with her sentencing by this Court on June 2, 2010. Ms. Kravetz pleaded guilty on February 18, 2010 to six counts of mail fraud in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 1341, and two counts of subscribing to false income tax returns in violation of Title 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); she is also charged in a forfeiture count pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. § 981 and Title 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c).

Although the offense occurred in the District of Massachusetts, Ms. Kravetz has been living and working in San Ramon, California for the past four years. Immediately following the return of the federal indictment on 8/28/2009, she was arrested in California on 8/28/2009, waived a removal hearing and was released on $20,000 unsecured bond with conditions. Ms. Kra-vetz has complied with her pretrial reporting conditions at the Oakland Pretrial Services office.

The defendant wasted no time in bringing this case to a conclusion. She has paid all taxes due and owing, including interest and penalties, and has entered into an agreement with the government regarding forfeiture. Her codefendant has paid the restitution in full. Ms. Kravetz asks the Court to sentence her to thirty six months probation with a special condition that the first six months be spent on electronic monitoring, that she continue in mental health treatment, and that she not be permitted to work in a capacity that gives her the authority to disperse funds.

The advisory guidelines must be considered in every sentence. The First Circuit has indicated that a sentencing judge should consider other factors that might make a sentence outside of the guideline range appropriate. Those factors are enumerated at 18 U.S.C. § 8553(a). U.S. v. Jimenez-Beltre, 440 F.3d 514, 518-19 (1st Cir.2006)(en banc). The defendant believes the advisory guidelines are, in her case, more onerous than need be. A variance in this case would be more appropriate.

The Advisory Guidelines

The defendant entered into a plea agreement with the government in which Kra-vetz expressly and unequivocally admits her guilt in committing mail fraud and income tax evasion. Both parties agreed that the advisory guidelines, after acceptance of responsibility, would result in a level 19, CHC II, guideline range 33-41 months. The government agreed to recommend a period of incarceration of 32 months. The defendant reserved the right to argue for departure from the advisory guideline or a sentence outside the guidelines pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Notwithstanding the plea agreement, the Presentence Report calculates the advisory guidelines higher, at level 20, CHC II for a range of 37-46 months.

Ms. Kravetz argues for a departure from the advisory guidelines. As outlined in her objections to the Presentence Report, the defendant asserts that her Criminal History overstates the seriousness of her past behavior, inasmuch as the prior offense of February 2004 and the instant offense which began six months later in August, 2004 actually constitute a single episode of behavior uncharacteristic of Ms. Kravetz’ otherwise exemplary life. The two offenses are the result of an ongoing period of depression and confusion for which she was undergoing mental health treatment with psychopharmacologic drugs. The state offense of February 2004 was continued without a finding and ultimately dismissed. Because the instant offense occurred during the period of the CWOF, Ms. Kravetz was assessed two more criminal history points, placing her in a Criminal History Category II.

The defendant asks this court to consider that a more appropriate advisory guideline level for Kravetz would be Level 19, CHC I, guideline range 30-37 months.

Although district courts were always expected to consider statutory factors at 3553(a), judges generally accepted that those factors were adequately considered by the Sentencing Commission. Even as the 3553(a) factors were often at odds with the then mandatory guidelines, appellate courts for the most part considered the supremacy of the guidelines over other factors. Much has changed in the emphasis that guidelines are now afforded. The defendant asks your honor to consider that even the advisory guideline range suggested by the defendant’s guideline departure is greater than necessary to meet the purposes of the sentence. In considering the Supreme Court’s mandate that in addition to considering the final advisory guideline calculation, the sentencing court must consider the statutory sentencing factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005).

Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Carolyn Kravetz agrees with the government’s version of the offense. The defendant met her co-defendant, Boris Levitin, while both attended Boston University; Kravetz received her Bachelor’s degree in 1988.

In the fall of 2003, Kravetz began experiencing emotional difficulties, anxiety attacks, extreme exhaustion, not eating, [redacted]

It was during this period [redacted] in February, 2004, that Kravetz’ total offense history began when she stole a credit card from a neighbor’s apartment. She used the card to purchase expensive shoes and clothing, none of which she needed or could not afford to buy on her own; the clothing still had the store tags attached at the time of her arrest. At the time of that offense, Kravetz was a full-time student pursuing a Master’s degree at Harvard University. She supported herself by refinancing her mortgage and living on savings. Prior to entering the Harvard program, the defendant had been earning good money at her job as Vice President of the Corporate Communications Department at Arnold Worldwide. She was always a saver and earned $107,500 when she was laid off from that position in December 2001. PSR ¶ 97. While employed at Arnold Worldwide, Kravetz subcontracted with her former classmate, Boris Levi-tin’s company to perform graphic design projects. Kravetz and Levitin had worked together at WGBH TV some years earlier, and Kravetz knew of Levitin’s abilities.

When the Brookline police executed a search warrant of Kravetz’s apartment, they confiscated a laptop that Levitin had stolen from WGBH after Levitin was terminated from his job. Kravetz appeared in Brookline District Court in January, 2005 and admitted responsibility for the stolen credit card. Her case was continued without a finding and she was ordered to perform 20 hours of community service. The case was dismissed in July, 2006.

Six months after the Brookline offense began, in August, 2004, Kravetz continued her self-destructive behavior with co-defendant, Boris Levitin. Kravetz had successfully earned an MA from Harvard in Public Administration in June 2004. She immediately parlayed the degree into a well-paying job as Director of Global Communications for Dunkin’ Brands at a salary of $120,000. Incomprehensibly, she used her position at Dunkin’ to subcontract with Levitin’s company, Luminophore. It is unclear when Kravetz actually subcontracted with Luminophore. She had begun work at Dunkin’ Brands in May 2004 and the offense conduct began in August' 2004. Kravetz took kickbacks from Levi-tin. She authorized payments to Levitin that totaled $396,875 over a period of 14 months. (8/2004-10/2005). The defendant approved invoices for work that was not finished and Levitin kicked back to Kra-vetz a total $198,437.50. Again, there was no financial need for Kravetz to get kickbacks. She did not live lavishly and deposited the funds into her own bank account or her Fidelity account.

In preparing her own income tax returns for offense years, 2004 and 2005, Kravetz neglected to identify the additional income she received from the mail fraud offense. The federal government and state of Massachusetts sustained a total tax loss of $81,309. The defendant has since filed amended tax returns, paid all taxes due and owing including interest and penalties.

Ms. Kravetz is horrified at the full realization of her criminal acts. Since she resigned from Dunkin Brands, she has completely changed her life and has been living a productive and crime free for the past four years in California. Even five years since the end of the offense period, Kravetz continues to be extremely remorseful for her behavior and the pain it has caused her family and friends, not to mention her former employer. She can now fully appreciate the extent of her mental health issues and is committed to making amends for her behavior. She understands the value of maintaining good mental health and undergoing the treatment she needs to keep her life in perspective.

History and Characteristics of Carolyn Kravetz

Carolyn Kravetz, presently 44 years old, •was born in Lynn and reared in the prosperous towns of Lynnfield and Peabody, along with her parents and two older sisters. The father owned a print shop where both he and Mrs. Kravetz spent their days working. The family lived in harmony enjoying the fruits of the parents’ labors with warm and close relationships, family vacations, and a respectful regard for each other. The defendant enjoyed the comfort and emotional support of her family during her early and teenaged years. Effortlessly, she did everything her parents expected of her — thriving at school, becoming a member of Honor Society, earning above-average grades, participating in extra-curricular activities, and learning the value of hard work. As children, Carolyn and her sister, [redacted] shared a paper route for many years, [redacted]

True to form, Kravetz left the family home when she entered Boston University in 1984 and continued on the path toward success, graduating from BU in 1988 with above-average grades. It was there that she met her co-defendant, Boris Levitin. The nature of their relationship is unclear, but they had an attraction for each other on several levels. One level led both of them into the criminal justice system.

On graduating, Ms. Kravetz set about to work in the media, at Boston’s channel 5 and Public Broadcasting Company’s WGBH in Boston, where Boris Levitin also worked for a time before he was fired.

Perhaps the experience of life in Boston’s urban environment with a more diverse population opened avenues of exploration for Ms. Kravetz that her rather sheltered and comfortable life had left undeveloped. Ms. Kravetz gained a sense that she needed to do something for the community. Her father reports that she “spent time to help improve the lives of those less fortunate than herself. During her tenure at Channel 5 she helped organize several public service campaigns. One in particular was Project Shelter. The goal of Project Shelter was to create an awareness about and raise funds for services that support the homeless. During the two-year campaign Carolyn spent countless hours getting to know homeless shelter directors and the families using the facilities in order to garner a deeper understanding of how families lose everything. In each of those years, after stopping by our house for a quick visit in the morning, she’d go off to spend the rest of Thanksgiving Day volunteering at a shelter in the Boston area.” She managed another project while working on the Volkswagen account at Arnold Worldwide. “Carolyn managed a year-long cross-country torch relay to raise awareness about and renew legislative support for the tenth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” Norman Kravetz letter appended. These projects whetted her appetite to better understand the government’s role in working with non-profits and the private sector. To that end, in September 2003, Kravetz enrolled in Harvard University’s Kennedy School toward a Master’s degree in Public Administration.

Carolyn Kravetz has always shared a bond with her two older sisters. Her sister, considers Carolyn as an ally and best friend, [redacted] She writes: “Over the last nearly twenty years, Carolyn has been a stalwart contributor to every organization where I have worked. Because these have been small organizations with little money in their budgets for promotion, she was always volunteered her time to help each and every one of them develop a unique, cogent marketing or press plan to augment their ticket sales and attract funding.” [redacted] letter appended.

[redacted] goes on to say that her sister has spent much of her life contributing positively, including tutoring math for her and her partner’s kindergarten class, collecting food for the homeless shelter, or helping a neighbor with a resume, [redacted] letter appended.

In spite of her success in securing her Masters’ degree, as well as securing responsible and good paying jobs, Carolyn Kravetz’ emotional life was falling apart.

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted] That connection has been restored with Carolyn’s involvement in therapy. “Over the past 18 months, Carolyn has been examining her past behavior in intensive therapy and certainly has great remorse for any wrongdoing in which she may have been involved. Given my close relationship with Carolyn, I can say with sincerity that this experience has left her emotionally fragile and I fear for her well-being.” Id. [redacted]

Since the offense cycle ended in October 2005, Ms. Kravetz realized she needed to get her emotional life under control. In October 2006, she moved to San Ramon, California and set about to make a new life for herself. She secured an apartment and several interim jobs. Ultimately, in June 2007, she secured a job as a high level employee of a Consumer Technology Group, A & R Edleman, Inc., earning $180,000 per year. She supervised nine people in the Marketing department, but had to leave this position in February 2010, when the company learned of her criminal charges. She worked at A & R Edleman for nearly three years with no blemishes on her record. Clearly, the family and job stability enabled Kravetz to enjoy a period of quietude from her emotional problems.

Since the fall of 2006, the defendant has maintained a relationship with [redacted] The couple has been living together for nearly four years and the defendant functions much as a mother to the two children, while sharing expenses with [redacted] However, since the defendant left her job at A & R Edleman, the couple has had to change their routine and economize. The defendant has taken over most of the childcare duties, feeding the children breakfast, making lunches and helping the children with their homework after school. In addition, Ms Kravetz regularly volunteers at the children’s school, in reading, math, and field trips. See Candice Arth letter appended.

The defendant had also found time to volunteer for the non-profit Foundation, One Love, which leads humanitarian trips to areas in need of disaster relief, both domestically and abroad. Stephanie Flynn, founder of One Love, writes: “I would not have achieved [success] if it were not for Carolyn’s help. She not only volunteered her expertise and extensive knowledge to help get this very important project off the ground, but most importantly, she consistently and continually volunteers her time. I know what Carolyn’s schedule had been like prior to losing her job between carrying on a full-time job, caring for and helping to raise two small children and volunteering in their classrooms. Despite her already full schedule, Carolyn offered me an extensive amount of time and ideas that helped my organization thrive.” Stephanie Flynn letter appended.

Carolyn’s partner, [redacted] writes: “Carolyn is a huge part of our family and supportive in every way ... she gets them ready each morning feeding them a warm and healthy breakfast, sends them to school having made their lunches and is the one they come home to each afternoon to start homework. Because of Carolyn, I have time to concentrate on building my business as well as going back to school to pursue the degree I long for knowing that the girls are in a safe and loving environment.” [redacted] letter appended. Clearly, life would dramatically change for [redacted] in the event Carolyn would be unavailable to care for the children, [redacted] has been attending law school classes in addition to running her business, [redacted] lated to the Probation Officer that Kravetz has been extremely depressed and emotionally fragile since her arrest two years ago. Perhaps with some suicidal thoughts, Kravetz had been hoarding medication. Although [redacted] no longer believes that Kravetz is suicidal, she is, nevertheless, extremely emotional and fragile. PSR ¶ 78 Ms. Kravetz understands that her loved ones have concern for her mental stability. She advised the Probation Officer, that she would never try to hurt herself, noting that she has too much responsibility to her family. It is her family and loved ones who sustain her. PSR¶ 79.

[redacted]

Meeting the Purposes of this Sentence

This Court knows well the statutes and the recent case law on sentencing. Congress delineated the goals of sentencing in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and required courts to craft a criminal defendant’s sentence in light of these policy directives. The overarching directive is the need to impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with” the purposes of sentencing. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). These purposes include the need to reflect on the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, create adequate deterrence, protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, and provide the defendant with necessary treatment and training. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

Most recently, the Supreme Court decided that life without parole for juveniles in non-homicide cases is unconstitutional. Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). In constructing the decision, the Court considered the purposes of sentencing that apply to all sentences. With regard to retribution, the Court cited approvingly, Tison, 481 U.S., at 149, 107 S.Ct. 1676, the proposition that “[t]he heart of the retribution rationale is that a criminal sentence must be directly related to the personal culpability of the criminal offender.” Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2028. Carolyn Kravetz asks this Court to consider her personal culpability in light of her unstable emotional state as well as her profound remorse and efforts at paying her taxes, penalties and forfeiture amount. Graham makes another point relevant to Ms. Kravetz’s case “Even if the punishment has some connection to a valid penological goal, it must be shown that the punishment is not grossly disproportionate in light of the justification offered.” Id. at 2029: One of the goals for incarcerating Ms. Kravetz would be deterrence. But of course, general deterrence has not been effective since fraud and tax evasion continue unabated in spite of the hefty sentences meted out over the past ten years. In the end, the only real concern in Ms. Kravetz’ case is specific deterrence and protection of the public, that ■ is, an assurance that she will not recidivate. There is no question that Ms. Kravetz is not a violent person and poses no such threat to anyone. While recidivism remains a legitimate concern, two safeguards can be put in place to ensure that Ms. Kravetz will continue with the personally productive life she has chosen. First, it would be important for her to continue in mental health treatment. The facts of her offense and personal history describe a behavior that is truly aberrant. The motivation for her crime can only be explained by her disturbed mental condition for the two-year period involving the offenses. In contrast, during most of her life, Kravetz showed a generosity of spirit by participating in charitable events and contributing to other causes. The facts as demonstrated in the Presentence Report and letters submitted to this court by people who know her well, bespeak of this criminal behavior as completely out of character. Continued mental health treatment should ensure that Ms. Kravetz maintains a balanced mental state. Second, a special condition of supervision that encourages Ms. Kravetz to work, but not in a position where she has control over dispersing funds.

Finally, the Court should consider other cases similarly situated to avoid any unwarranted disparity in sentencing Ms. Kravetz. A review of the Federal Defender’s data bank on sentences in this district reveals three post-Gall/Kimbrough Fraud cases with discounts from 9% to 60%. A review of Pre-Gall/Kimbrough Fraud cases reveals eight cases in the data base with discounts ranging from 24% to 52%. Not surprisingly, even when the guidelines were mandatory, judges in this district sentenced according to the statute with guidelines playing an important role.

On a national level, the Sentencing Commission’s data report for Fiscal 2008, shows the Median Percent Decrease From GuideKne Minimum in Fraud cases to be 64.6% and the Median sentence for Fraud cases was 5 months. For Tax cases, the Percent Decrease was 100% and the median sentence was zero. See Attached Table 8.

In a 1998 D/Ma case of embezzlement and tax evasion, Alfredo Ribot, CR 98-10061-NG, was charged with taking $193,092 from his employer. Tax evasion charges related to the embezzlement. Ri-bot had a guideline level 17, CHC I. Ribot was sentenced to 36 months probation with a special condition of home' detention with electronic monitoring, participation in substance abuse and mental health treatment, and restitution in the amount of $193,092. The Presentence Report actually calculated the fraud loss at $599,893, but the judge found no factual basis for increasing the loss amount. Ribot, unlike Kravetz, had a legacy of family abuse which Ribot surmounted with the help of large amounts of alcohol. In spite of his alcoholism and major depression, Ribot, like Kravetz, worked hard in contributing voluntary service to the community. Like Kravetz, Ri-bot exhibited suicidal tendencies but he actually did make an attempt on his life. Judge Gertner found the guidelines excessive. Even in the mandatory guideline era, Judge Gertner concluded that “the appropriate sentence is one that enables Ribot to continue his treatment.” With regard to the argument that the Bureau of Prisons has programs adequate to the task of addressing Ribot’s problems, J. Gertner wrote: “Any imprisonment necessarily means interrupting any treatment — a period prior to classification (6-12 weeks, perhaps), then classification, and finally, treatment. Imprisonment means interrupting this particular treatment plan, one which seems to offer hope ... Furthermore, all psychiatrists describe Ribot as extremely fragile and vulnerable at this time, and warn against the consequences of imprisonment ...” U.S. v. Ribot, 97 F.Supp.2d 74, 75, 77, 84—Dist.Court, D

Ms. Kravetz asks the Court to sentence her in accordance with Ribot’s sentence. Justice Stevens quoted the District Judge’s conclusion in Gall that “a sentence of imprisonment may work to promote not respect, but derision, of the law if the law is viewed as merely a means to dispense harsh punishment without taking into account the real conduct and circumstances involved in sentencing” In Gall as here, a sentence of incarceration would do nothing to promote respect for the law, especially in view of Ms. Kravetz’ remorse and the repayment of the economic harm.

All things considered, a probation term of 36 months with a special condition of six months home confinement will enable Ms. Kravetz to continue with her mental health treatment, care for her partner’s children, and carry on her voluntary service. Eventually, Ms. Kravetz may find a job, as long as she is not tempted by the ability to disperse funds.

Respectfully Submitted,

Carolyn Kravetz,

By her Counsel,

//Joseph J. Balliro, Sr.

Joseph J. Balliro, Sr., Esquire

Balliro & Mondano

63 Atlantic Avenue

3rd Floor

Boston MA 02110

(617) 737-8442

BBO # 028000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on May 26, 2010.

/s/Joseph J. Balliro, Jr.

Joseph J. Balliro, Jr.

Certification

Counsel certifies that he has complied with the mandates of the Policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States and the E-Govemment Act of 2002 by minimizing personal data content in this submission and attachments and by captioning this Memorandum as Under Seal.

/s/Joseph J. Balliro, Jr.

Joseph J. Balliro, Jr.

March 3, 2010

Mr. Joe Balliro

65 Chole Court

Barnstable, MA 02630

Mr. Balliro:

This letter is to confirm that Ms. Carolyn Kravez has been attending weekly mental health counseling through our agency over the past year Ms. Kravetz was referred to Sharper Future by Federal Pretrial services in order to help her manage [redacted] related to her current legal situation Ms. Kravetz has been extremely cooperative and fully engaged in the therapeutic process, [redacted] This recommendation was approved. Please feel free to contact me directly at [redacted] you should have any further questions.

Sincerely.

Kristina Serrano, LMFT

The Honorable Joseph L. Tauro:

Dear Judge Tauro:

[redacted]

Carolyn is a huge part of our family and supportive in every way. [redacted] Because of Carolyn I have time to concentrate on building my business as well as going back to school to pursue the degree I long for [redacted] Carolyn is a very generous, throughout warm and giving person. I have witnessed on many occasions her willingness to help others in different situations. She volunteers at the kid’s school, she has volunteered at local charities and has offered her knowledge and expertise to friends who have lost jobs or are looking for job changes.

Unbeknownst to many, for the past 18 months Carolyn has been living in her own prison. I do not believe there is a minute that goes by without her thoughts and acknowledgement of the mistakes she has made I know that she is remorseful and we talk often about her regret in judgment. [redacted] than two hours of sleep at any one time and is very scared about her future.

My hope is that you see Carolyn for the person she is outside of this mistake. Carolyn has so many wonderful things to offer not only our family but our community and society in general — she is a good person.

Judge Tauro, please consider probation and or public service as opposed to incarceration for Carolyn, [redacted] we need her in our lives, we need her our home.

Respectfully,

[redacted]

May 13, 2010

The Honorable Joseph L. Tauro:

Dear Judge Tauro,

I am writing on behalf of my colleague and friend, Carolyn Kravetz.

I first met Carolyn four years ago through mutual colleagues. Since then Pve been able to spend a good deal of time with Carolyn and get to know her well as she has been volunteering at my non-profit organization, One Love International.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on Carolyn’s behalf as it is not very often that someone volunteers her time to the extent that Carolyn has. Three years ago the industry that I worked in took a downturn; I lost my job and my home as a result. At this point I decided to pursue my lifetime dream of starring a humanitarian nonprofit organization. Carolyn was extremely supportive spending countless hours sharing her knowledge of launching and running a 501(c)(3) organization. Having spent several years deeply involved with the New England Chapter of the Ronald McDonald House Children’s Charities and five years spent working on public service projects at WCVB-TV in Boston, her firsthand knowledge of this type of organization has been invaluable to me.

Starting One Love International — which leads humanitarian trips to areas in need of disaster relief both domestically and abroad — has been a long process; and one which I would not have achieved if it were not for Carolyn’s help. She not only volunteered her expertise and extensive knowledge to help get this very important project off the ground, but most importantly, she consistently and continually volunteers her time. I know what Carolyn’s schedule had been like prior to losing her job between carrying on a full-time job, caring for and helping to raise two small children and volunteering in their classrooms. Despite her already full schedule Carolyn offered me an extensive amount of time and ideas that helped my organization thrive.

If I had to sum up Carolyn’s motivation for all that she does to help me and others, it is that she cares, Carolyn cares that One Love International is successful. She is personally interested in seeing me succeed. More importantly, Carolyn cares about the people who may be positively impacted by an organization such as the one she helped me create. I know if she had a valid passport and permission to travel she would be anxious to participate on the ground.

Judge Tauro, no one is more aware of the mistakes she has made than Carolyn herself. We talk often and one thing that is very apparent to me is the regret she feels for her actions which led to this case. My hope and prayer is that you will offer her an alternative to incarceration. This is a woman with much to offer and she does so unselfishly.

I respectfully thank you for your time and consideration and for the opportunity to speak on my dear friend’s behalf.

Sincerely,

Stephanie Flynn

Executive Director

One Love International

Stephanie Flynn Founder and Executive Director 22751 El

Prado # 8208 Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688

[redacted]

[redacted]

Leonore Kravetz

[redacted]

Plymouth, MA 02360

[redacted]

The Honorable Joseph L. Tauro

United States District Court

1 Courthouse Square, Suite 2106

Boston, MÁ, 02216

Dear Judge Tauro,

I would like to introduce myself, I am Carolyn Kravetz’s mother, Lenore Kra-vetz, and I am proud of it [redacted]

[redacted]

Carolyn has shown a focus for whatever she undertakes. Her upward mobility in the work environment certainly indicates this. In 2002, while holding a position as Vice-president at a large Boston advertising agency, Carolyn decided to return to school. She applied to and was accepted at the Kennedy School at Harvard University where she received her advanced degree in Public Policy in June 2004. For Carolyn, the experience at the Kennedy School was enlightening from both an academic and personal prospective.

Carolyn is wonderful with children, animals and the less fortunate. She has been concerned about the homeless; the less advantaged and about abandoned animals. She has contributed to this end with food, clothing and other necessities. She has volunteered her time at food shelters and at other non-profit agencies.

Carolyn is a caring and loving individual who I feel will continue to make a positive and meaningful contribution to society.

Carolyn is extremely remorseful concerning the past and knows that nothing she can do today will change that; however she is taking responsibility for it and is optimistically turning toward the future.

I love her with all my heart and soul, pray for her daily and feel that all will turn out in a positive way.

Sincerely.

Leonore Kravetz

[redacted]

[redacted]

Norman M. Kravetz

[redacted]

Plymouth 02360

[redacted]

The Honorable Joseph L. Tauro

United States District Court

1 Courthouse Way, Suite 2306

Boston, MA 02216

Dear Judge Tauro,

I have known Carolyn Kravetz since birth. In time, that represents 44 years, I am the father of the sophisticated, energetic, extremely bright, well-educated woman. Carolyn Kravetz.

As a parent and more specifically as her father. I would like to say that, “I am proud that Carolyn is my daughter.” To reflect upon what Carolyn has accomplished in her professional life is only a dream for some parents, however for me it is reality.

[redacted]

[redacted] Add to the above, her accomplishments in the work place and yet can see why I am as proud as I am of Carolyn.

For a parent to see their child’s name appear in the credits, on screen, after the 11 o’clock news is in the Jewish faith, “nachos” (meaning: pleasure or joy). The reality is that as Director of Public Relations at WCVB-TV, (Channel 5), her mime did appear. For me, to see her name quoted in the media as the spokesperson for McDonald’s, Volkswagen, Dun-kin Donuts or Staples serves as a reward for the effort we expended to raise Carolyn. As a professional woman, Carolyn is, I think, the best in her field.

What is not obvious on Carolyn’s professional resume’ are the contributions she made behind the scenes, alter working hours, on weekends and during vacations. That’s the time Carolyn spent volunteering her time to help improve the lives of those less fortunate than herself. During her tenure at Channel 5, she helped organize several public service campaigns. One in particular was Project Shelter. The goal of Project Shelter was to create awareness about and raise funds for services that support the homeless. During the two-year campaign Carolyn spent countless hours getting to know homeless shelter directors and the families using the facilities in order to garner a deeper understanding of how families lose everything. In each of those years, after stopping by our house for a quick visit in the morning, she would go off to spend the rest of Thanksgiving Day volunteering sit a shelter in the Boston area. While working on the Volkswagen account at Arnold Worldwide Carolyn managed a year-long, cross-country torch relay to raise awareness about and renew legislative support for the tenth anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This is the Carolyn that has the compassion and the desire to help others in need. These experiences drove Carolyn’s desire to attend the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University to learn how to better understand the ways in which government, non-profits and the private sector could work together to build a better society.

[redacted]

What words does one use to describe Carolyn’s persona? Words that come to mind are; kind, generous, considerate, un-selfish, pretty, and caring. If I were to consult Webster’s dictionary of the English language, I could possibly come up with hundreds more.

[redacted]

[redacted]

Carolyn is the third generation of the Kra-vetz family to attend college, the second generation to have attended graduate school (Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, class of“01f) and she possesses a resume’ of accomplishments that make her mother and me proud to say ... “She is our daughter.”

Sincerely.

Norman M. Kravetz

San Ramon Valley Unified School District

Coyote Creek Elementary School

[redacted]

San Ramon, CA 94582

May 18, 2010

Candice Arth

[redacted]

San Ramon, CA

94588

The Honorable Joseph L. Tauro:

Dear Judge Tauro,

I have had the pleasure of working with Carolyn Kravetz for two years, as she volunteered in my kindergarten classroom last year during our weekly reading learning center, and now this year in my first grade classroom during oar weekly math tutoring center. In the time I have known her, she has brought a dedicated spirit to my classroom, my students, and to our school’s learning community.

I wish all my classroom volunteers were as effective and reliable as Carolyn has proven to be. I greatly appreciate the fact that she has always helped maintain my established routines and procedures, while providing the necessary support and guidance for all my student’s diverse learning needs. She works effectively with my students as she encourages them to become problem-solvers, which makes the subject matter more meaningful to them. Her positive support, communication, and praise on my student’s effort, hard work, and ability provide another benefit as they grow in their self-concept as well.

Carolyn’s contribution to my classroom and my students does not stop with weekly tutoring. She does home preparation for many of my class projects, volunteers for field trip driving and chaperone responsibility, and provides donations for many of my classroom needs.

Carolyn is a caring and dedicated person who involves herself in student learning and in our whole school community. She contributes time, effort, and money to school activities, helping to successfully promote Coyote Creek’s vision statement, values, life skills awareness, and the strengthening of our school and home partnership.

During the two years I have know Carolyn, all her contributions to my classroom as well as our school have been immeasurable in the success of my students and in the success of our whole school community.

Sincerely,

Candice Arth

REDACTED

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

V.

CAROLYN KRAVETZ, and BORIS LEV-ITIN, Defendants.

Criminal Action NO. 08-10251-JLT

FILED UNDER SEAL

DEFENDANT BORIS LEVITIN’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION

Boris Levitin does not come before this Court to sugarcoat or make excuses for his crimes. Rather, as his guilty plea illustrates, Levitin deeply regrets and accepts unconditional blame for the serious fraud offenses of which he stands convicted.

But if any defendant deserves a noncustodial sentence — by downward departure or variance from his advisory Guidelines range (21-27 months) — then surely Levitin does. A virtual poster child for expanded sentencing discretion after U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), Levitin is a most unusual fraud offender. We base this characterization on a unique combination of factors outlined in the Presentence Report (PSR) and amplified below, including the following:

• Extraordinary Physical Impairment

Levitin, just 45, sees a battery of doctors, visits a spate of hospitals, and takes a flurry of medications for a wave of debilitating ailments that will dramatically worsen in jail — ailments the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is ill-equipped to adequately manage. Topping the list are the following:

★ uncontrolled Type II diabetes;

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted] ■

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted]

★ [redacted]

According to his doctors, Levitin’s life expectancy is no more than 12 years, and he is at risk of heart attack, stroke, organ failure, liver cancer or even death itself. Without exaggeration, then, prison could literally kill Boris Levitin, or at least accelerate his demise.

• Extraordinary Family Circumstances

Born into a broken and impoverished home in Soviet Russia, Levitin was abandoned by his father as a boy and raised by an unstable and abusive mother [redacted] Indeed, Levi-tin does not know his mother’s whereabouts even today, as he has not heard from her in years. Emigrating to Israel, Levitin was later marginalized, beaten and terrorized by neighborhood thugs, to the point where he contemplated suicide. These formative experiences left Lev-itin vulnerable, naive and primed for manipulation — both generally and by “psychopathic” codefendant Carolyn Kravetz, the scheme’s undisputed mastermind and ringleader who took full advantage when Levitin had the misfortune to fall under her sway.

• Atypical Fraud Defendant

How many accused swindlers embark on their schemes intending to provide the services for which they are engaged? Better yet, how many corrupt vendors actually perform substantial work for their clients, as documented in contemporaneous emails, evidenced by binders of voluminous work product, and acknowledged by the client itself in a civil settlement agreement? And, equally telling, how many fraud defendants constantly badger their contact at the client company — as contemporaneous emails further reflect — for specifications and directions needed to complete outstanding work, only to be stymied by her calculated campaign of falsehoods?

Boris Levitin did all that and more, reimbursing every cent of the $396,875 he received from Dunkin’— including the one-half share (almost $200,000) that went to Kravetz herself. While starting out with honest intentions, Levitin’s terminal error— born of fear, panic and a misplaced desire to protect Kravetz — was joining her fraud in progress when it should have been obvious that she didn’t share his good faith: that she never intended for the outstanding work to be finished and was bent on stealing from Dunkin’. Levitin should have known better, and his inordinately poor judgment has landed him before this Court for sentencing.

For all these reasons, discussed more fully below, the Court should exercise its post-Booker discretion and impose a noncustodial sentence here, via Guidelines departure or 18 U.S.C. § 3553 variance.

LEVITIN’S TROUBLED CHILDHOOD

Pages 8-11 of the PSR aptly describe Levitin’s Dickensian upbringing, so we reference them in some detail.

1. Born an only child in 1965 Moscow, Levitin was raised by a mentally disturbed mother and malevolent grandmother. His father was largely absent, having left the family following a divorce while Levitin was in útero. PSR ¶¶ 31-33, 37-38, 41.

2. Soviet life was “dangerous” and the family poor, struggling for clothes and shelter, waiting in food lines and scraping by on as little as one meal a week. Id. ¶¶ 33-34.

3. At age seven-and-a-half, Levitin fled with his mother and grandmother to Israel, where life remained “difficult.” Persecuted ethnically and religiously, Levitin was “beaten and tortured daily” by neighborhood toughs, [redacted] Id. ¶¶ 34-35, 63, 69.

4. [redacted] Id. ¶¶ 37-38.

5. Levitin and his mother came to America in 1984, living in “dangerous” New York City neighborhoods before settling in Boston [redacted] Id. ¶¶ 39-42.

6. [redacted] Id. ¶¶ 43, 46.

Levitin’s traumatic childhood forged a weak and dependent personality- — maladjusted, insecure, emotionally needy and ripe for exploitation. Enter Carolyn Kra-vetz, a pathological liar and “master manipulator,” creating a recipe for disaster and unleashing a perfect storm. 4/28/10 Ltr. of Karen E. Sweeney (Ex. 2), at 3.

KRAVETZ’S TWISTED AND PREDATORY RELATIONSHIP WITH LEVITIN

Levitin and Kravetz met at Boston University in 1985, forming a perverse and dysfunctional relationship — one-sided if not sadomasochistic — that lasted over 20 years. E.g., PSR ¶¶ 2, 70. They went on to work together at WGBH-TV and Arnold Worldwide Communications, Inc., where Kravetz, a communications vice president, hired Levitin as an outside graphic designer. E.g., id.; Kravetz Sent. Br. 5.

Kravetz’s Pathological Duplicity

Common acquaintances describe Kra-vetz as “wicked,” treacherous and “so-ciopathic” — “cunning, devious” and “controlling,” prone to emotional “blackmail! ]” and able to “deceive! ]” those around her for “long” periods of “time.” See generally, e.g., Ex. 1 at 2 (“highly aggressive” and “extremely manipulative”); Ex. 2 at 1, 3 (bullying, violent, “self-centered and conniving”); Exs. 3 & 4 (full of deceit). As one writer puts it, Kravetz “could appear nice when it was in her interests,” hiding her true nature from her closest companions — [redacted] and leaving a trail of victims in her wake. Ex. 1 at 2; accord Ex. 3 at 3 (“she lured me in, deluded me and appeared to be nice and reassuring and in charge”).

[redacted]

[redacted]

Ex. 2 at 2-3 (emphasis supplied); accord Ex. 4 at 1 [redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

Ex. 2 at 2 (emphasis supplied).

[redacted] Ex. 4 at 1.

[redacted] details the extent of Kravets’s stealing and lying, explaining how she too became a victim:

While I knew [Kravetz], I learned that she was doing things out of the ordinary and illegal. She purchased mattresses, high end shoes, top of the line washer/dryer, designer rugs, a bedroom set from the finest maker, diamond earrings and then claimed to American Express or others that she never received the goods. She stole laptops, a chair and LCD projector from work. I witnessed her doing expense reports for work, where she took full advantage of the company, billing them for every personal expense she had. I went with her to shop on Newbury Street once, meeting up with her at her hair salon, where she put expensive bottles of shampoo in to my bag without me knowing she did not pay for [them] or that I was carrying them until hours later. One time, when she was invited to visit my family’s summer home, I found her at our neighbor’s house, in their master bedroom looking in their top dresser drawer. I suspect she was looking for jewelry to take home with her as she was aware that they had ... enormous ... wealth.

Id. (emphasis supplied).

Indeed, Kravetz even lied to [redacted] about her own background, inventing an alternate history for herself. “On the occasions that I was with her family,” [redacted] remembers, “[Kravetz] was careful to never leave me alone with anyone for fear that I would mention something about her past that she fabricated to me. Over time I learned that she did not grow up in the state she said she did, did not attend Phillips Academy; did not have the life that she told me she did.” Id.

Kravetz’s chicanery and kleptomania crested in 2004, with her arrest for — and ultimate admission to — burgling the apartment of a friend and her autistic daughter, stealing their credit cards, and charging thousands of dollars of merchandise, including expensive shoes and clothes. See, e.g., Govt. Sent. Br. re Kravetz 2-4; Kra-vetz Sent. Br. 4-5; Ex. 3 at 2. The victimized friend, [redacted] recounts this nightmare episode and the damage it caused her and her daughter, revealing the depth of Kravetz’s pathology in covering it up:

I was about to find out who Carolyn Kravetz was when she entered my apartment without my permission and stole credit cards belonging to my daughter and myself.

I did not return home to find my apartment door forced open. Carolyn had a copy of my key....

[And she] was there to help. So devious was she that she had planned for this scenario. Call the police, she said. She would talk to them about what she had observed over the weekend. I was present while she gave false information to Officer McHugh about a package she had put at my door and ‘a suspicious person’ she had seen. I had to change my locks. She just happened to have a locksmith coming over. Don’t worry, she would send him up to my apartment. Did I need anything at the store?

* He *

I spent time and effort to straighten out the financial mess caused by the use of my credit card and dealing with the Police....

Carolyn had also made fraudulent charges on my daughter’s credit card[, c]harging items and having them shipped to my daughter when we were both out of town.

What Carolyn did to me was wrong, but what she did to my daughter, [redacted] who has a disability was beyond belief and horrendous. Carolyn knew about my daughter’s condition; a form of high functioning Autism. It had taken years of struggle for [redacted] to be on her own, complete four years of college and cope with the stresses of everyday life. But she still has manifestations of Autism; mainly anxiety. My daughter was beside herself trying to straighten out her credit card mess. Carolyn knew about the situation and even offered to contact a lawyer friend who handled cases like this, for us.

Even now, as I write, I find my hand trembling with fear and anger over what Carolyn Kravetz did to us.

Ex. 3 at 1-2 (emphasis supplied); accord Ex. 4 at 1 (“After moving out, I ran into ... a neighbor of ours. She shared with me that Carolyn had stolen her adult disabled daughter’s credit card and ran the bill up with extravagant purchases. She was devastated.”).

Kravetz’s Long-Term Abuse and Manipulation of Levitin

For his part, Levitin was Kravetz’s opposite in virtually every significant respect. “[K]ind, generous [and] hard-working,” he was known among the same mutual acquaintances as “decent” and “wonderful,” Ex. 2 at 1 — albeit “guileless,” id., “very naive and trusting,” Ex. 1 at 2, and “tending] to see the good in people,” Ex. 2 at 2. See also Ex. 1 at 1 (“pleasant, well-intentioned, knowledgeable”); Ex. 2 at 1-2 (principled, intelligent and well-educated). Given these predispositions, Levitin was bound to “f[a]ll prey,” Ex. 3 at 2, to Kra-vetz’s sly ways. And fall he did, quickly finding himself “captured in her grasp,” Ex. 1 at 2, and under her proverbial thumb, Kravetz “us[ing him] to her advantage whenever she needed him,” Ex. 2 at 1, while cleverly keeping him “in the dark,” Ex. 1 at 2, as to “who” she really “was.” Ex. 3 at 1; see also Ex. 2 at 3 (Kravetz “fully took advantage” of Levi-tin’s gentle nature); Ex. 3 at 1 (neighbors “would shake [t]he[i]r head[s] and say that [Levitin] was being used”); Ex. 4 at 1 (Levitin “manipulated and taken advantage of by Kravetz).

To one writer, Levitin appeared “full of love and concern, cared for [Kravetz], brought her food and gifts, always with a smile on his face.” Ex. 1 at 2. In fact, he was so devoted that he gave Kravetz some $150,000 in financial support over 15 years, even buying her groceries and other household items — simply because she cried poverty while earning enough to purchase “new cars for cash” and a Brookline apartment. Ex. 2 at 2. As another writer confirms, “Boris [would] tak[e] Carolyn grocery shopping in his car, even though Carolyn had a car of her own. Boris seemed like a ‘best friend,’ lugging bags of things up the two flights of stairs. But after the chores were done, he would leave. What a great person to have, I thought.” Ex. 3 at 1.

Yet at the same time, Kravetz took pains to “isolate” Levitin from “all her other relationships,” keeping her true self carefully under wraps [redacted] Ex. 2 at 2. [redacted] thus reports that

Carolyn presented a completely different face to Boris.... [She] went to great lengths to behave and act differently in front of [him]. She told me and her other friends who knew Boris never to talk about her in front of him. When Boris visited the apartment she had to be part of every conversation, [redacted] I don’t know whether Carolyn had any positive feelings for Boris because she often badmouthed him to me behind his back.... But she always had the greatest respect for his intellect and his workmanship. Whenever she needed any help in her work or in her life that required these abilities, she turned to him....

[For these reasons, she] knew that she could not reveal her true face to Boris.... Because they were never lovers, he never truly saw the [dark] side of her nature.... It [was] an awful combination.

I believe that Boris was victimized by Carolyn — she used the same tactics and strategy with me and others when she wanted something. Carolyn lied to him because she lied to everybody to get what she wanted.

Ex. 2 at 2-3 (emphasis supplied).

Still another writer shares these perceptions, telling how Kravetz once “laughed” when Levitin’s “name” and “what he did for her” came up in conversation. Ex. 3 at I. According to the writer, Kravetz said “she felt sorry” for Levitin, boasting that “he had no idea who she was and ... was willing to do anything for her.” Id. (emphasis supplied); see also Ex. 1 at 2 [redacted]

It was against this backdrop that Dun-kin’ hired Kravetz as a marketing director in 2004, PSR ¶ 2, setting the stage for the offense of conviction.

LEVITIN’S OFFENSE CONDUCT

As a marketing director, Kravetz had discretionary authority to approve vendor invoice payments up to $100,000. E.g., id. ¶ 2; Indictment ¶ 6. The toxic mix that was Kravetz and Levitin boiled over in 2004, when, using that authority, she tapped him to provide graphic design, technical publishing and information systems services for Dunkin. E.g., PSR ¶¶ 2-3.

As the government recognizes, Kravetz “mastermindt[ed]” and orchestrated every aspect of the “two-person [fraud] scheme” charged in the indictment, hatching and “controlling]” it “from the get-go.” Govt. Sent. Br. re Kravetz 4. Most pivotally, she “decided what projects would be billed,” id., and “instructed” Levitin — a first offender — to “pre-invoice” them before beginning the work, 8/4/06 Proffer at