R.B. is a medical doctor who was accused in Texas of distributing counterfeit merchandise in violation of federal and state laws. To protect his client from possible criminal prosecution and the ramifications that such prosecution would have had for both his liberty and professional license, Attorney Dudley was able to resolve the matter through an early and quick civil settlement.
In U.S v. D.A., the defendant was accused of participating in a conspiracy to distribute large quantities of pharmaceutical drugs unlawfully from California to Washington and Alaska. The defendant faced a potential federal guideline sentence of over ten years, despite her youthfulness and lack of criminal record. To protect her from such a draconian sentence, Attorney Dudley worked out a disposition under which she faced a maximum penalty of approximately 33 months, for which the government in fact argued at sentencing. Directing the district court to the defendant’s very unstable and almost tragic upbringing, along with an older co-conspirator’s manipulation of her, the sentencing judge imposed NO PRISON TIME, placing the defendant instead on an 18-month term of house arrest.
M.B. worked for a franchise of a nationwide coffee house chain. She was terminated after the owner of that franchise discovered that she had embezzled thousands of dollars from his store. A felony criminal investigation commenced. On the verge of meeting with an investigating detective who would have arrested her, she instead decided to retain Attorney Dudley. Citing the defendant’s young age and lack of criminal history, Mr. Dudley convinced the detective that a civil settlement of the matter would be in the best interest of all involved. Once the victim owner accepted that proposal, he received a monetary settlement and NO CHARGES were filed.
R.R. worked for an income tax preparation service but came under federal investigation for the submission of false returns and also identity theft. After Attorney Dudley convinced investigating agents that it was her identity that had been stolen by certain operators of that service, the investigation of her ceased and NO CHARGES were ever filed.
The defendant in P. v. G.C. was investigated by a federal/state task force for orchestrating a conspiracy to distribute substantial amounts of cocaine from Mexico into Southern California. That investigation resulted in wiretaps of his and other co-conspirator’s telephones. Those wiretaps captured multiple conversations in which the defendant directed others to distribute several hundred kilograms of cocaine. Eventually charged in California state court, the defendant, who already had one prior felony drug-trafficking conviction, faced a potential sentence of almost 30 years. Attorney Dudley, however, negotiated a disposition of only 9 years. With Mr. Dudley’s post-sentence assistance, under the state’s new realignment system, his client will probably qualify for programs which will reduce his actual time of incarceration to no more than 3 years.
In U.S. v. J.P., the defendant was accused of participating in a conspiracy by a street gang to distribute large amounts of crack cocaine. His prior criminal history qualified him for career offender status under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The conviction that ultimately placed him in that status was one for assault with a deadly weapon—a case in which he had fired multiple rounds from a semi-automatic weapon at a private security officer in his patrol vehicle. Under the habitual offender provisions of the guidelines, the defendant faced a minimum sentence of 188 months. While emphasizing the extreme seriousness of that conviction for assault with a firearm, the district court accepted Attorney Dudley’s argument that his client had committed that crime, and several other felonies, many years in the past when he was a young, misguided, abused, drug-addicted, and reckless youth. Consequently, he sentenced the defendant to an imprisonment term of 96 months, over 8 years less than that recommended by the guidelines.
In U.S. v. J.S., the defendant was accused of being the principal organizer of a Mexican drug cartel’s conspiracy to import assault rifles from the United States into Mexico. That conspiracy was the focus of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm’s “Fast and Furious” investigation. The defendant was personally involved with the transfer of several hundred assault weapons from Arizona to Mexico. Due to the number of weapons he exported, his leadership role, his extensive criminal history, and his unlawful presence in the United States when he committed the offense, the defendant was facing a potential federal guideline sentence of 360 months to life in prison. Attorney Dudley, however, negotiated a disposition with the government which provided for a maximum sentence of 180 months. After expressing his discomfort with that plea agreement and indicating his desire to sentence the defendant to a prison term far greater than 180 months, as recommended by the United States Probation Office, the district court ultimately accepted the agreement and imposed a sentence of 15 years.