DOJ-OGR-00010197.jpg

Casas 2020-000033 PAENDocument 6446-330 Fidel1002321412222 a arreg900f of 11717
A-5942
Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 604 Filed 03/16/13 Page 13 of 14

ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
The Honorable William H. Pauley, III
March 7, 2013
Page 13
As noted above, we believe that the jury convicted David for his involvement in
three backdating transactions from which he barely profited. He has already suffered greatly for
that conduct. Since 2004, when the criminal investigation commenced, this matter has hung over
him. His once-thriving brokerage business has collapsed. His wife's health has suffered. See
supra n.3. His children have felt the sting of comments from others who have learned of David's
conviction. And the stigma of the conviction haunts David, especially because it is antithetical
to the values with which he was raised. See letter of Theresa Parse ("our lives [have] essentially
[been] placed on hold, as we try to raise our three sons in a safe and secure environment").
More than 15 years ago, the United States Supreme Court reminded that the
"uniform and constant... tradition for the sentencing judge [is] to consider every convicted
person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes
mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue." Koon v. United States,
518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996). In this submission, we have tried to show that David Parse is a
fundamentally decent man. He believes in family, hard work, helping others, and being actively
involved in community. The conduct for which he was convicted, we believe, was at the
periphery of the Jenkins scheme. On this record, we respectfully submit that a non-incarcerative
sentence would be just. It would not diminish respect for the law. See United States v. Adelson,
441 F.Supp.2d 506, 513-14 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("if ever a man is to receive credit for the good he

DOJ-OGR-00010197