THE SENTENCING OF ANTHONY ALEGRETE
- Jason Beck
- Mar 19
- 3 min read
Dale Schafer Esq.
03-19-2025
Original High At 9 News Story
On February 28, 2014, in the Federal District Court in North Carolina,
Anthony Alegrete was sentenced for his involvement in an illegal marijuana
distribution operation that transported thousands of pounds of marijuana
across the United States, as well as laundering the money from the
enterprise. As I read the transcript of the sentencing, I was reminded of my
case, and the many others I reviewed, where people were threatened with
massive sentences that could be reduced if there was “substantial
cooperation”. In common parlance, to snitch on other people involved in the
criminal enterprise. Mr. Alegrete’s sentence was reduced by such a large
amount that I was left to wonder just who he ratted out.
The prosecutor on the case stated that Anthony had a thousand kilos of
marijuana on him. He was arrested in an airport with over $190,000.00 on
his person. His offence level, under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines was
a Level 31, with a criminal history level of III. This translated to a sentence
range 168 to 240 months, or 14 to 20 years. However, the US Attorney filed
a 5K Motion to reduce the sentence range because of “Substantial
Cooperation” A 5K Motion, which I didn’t review, spells out the cooperation
from a criminal defendant, and asks the court to depart from the sentencing
guidelines.
The Federal Sentencing Guidelines advise the Court of the recommended
sentencing ranges based upon the offense charged, the defendant’s
involvement in the crime, and any factors that might reduce the sentence.
In the case of Mr. Alegrete, he was ready, willing, and able to testify against
co-defendant Parker Coleman. Although the US Attorney decided not to
call Alegrete to testify, he was ready. Coleman received a sentence of 60
years. Alegrete also provided information about an important fugitive
co-defendant, and other significant targets. These actions, and other
cooperation spelled out in the 5K Motion, justified a massive departure from
the guidelines for Mr. Alegrete.
The US Attorney also withdrew a Motion under 21 USC 851, that would
have established Alegrete’s significant criminal history. Without the 851
Motion, the court can not consider a defendant’s criminal history to
enhance his sentence. Alegrete’s criminal history was extensive, but the
court did not consider it because the Motion was withdrawn.
There was much discussion during the sentencing hearing about Alegrete
serving a sentence in California for the same conduct for which he was
indicted under Federal Law. Alegrete was given credit for the 2 years he
served in California as part of the substantial departure he received. Under
the normal circumstances of Federal v State charges, each is able to fully
prosecute and sentence for violations of both State and Federal law
because they are separate sovereigns. However, in this case, Alegrete had
his Federal sentence reduced for serving state time for a common nucleus
of operative facts that violated Federal law.
Most of the time in the sentencing hearing was devoted to testimony from
character witnesses for Alegrete. It seems that he got out of prison, went to
college at UNLV, was awarded a college degree, and started several
business entities that were helpful to the public. The Judge gave significant
consideration to Alegrete’s claimed rehabilitation as he reduced the
sentence massively.
At the end of the day, Alegrete was given a sentence of 54 months, with 60
months of Supervised Release. This is quite a departure from the top
sentence of 20 years to under 5 years. It causes one to wonder just what
Alegrete did to get such a sweet deal. I must confess that I have a dark
spot in my heart for snitches, and inside the joint, rats are targeted for
obvious reasons. Although I understand a person rehabilitating himself
however I don’t see how that got Alegrete the deal he received. Something
seems off about this sentencing deal. I can tell you from the perspective of
someone that has been sentenced, and served time, this whole scenario
does not add up. I refused to rat anyone out and I received 60 months for
conduct that pales in comparison to what Alegrete did. A 75% departure is
what Alegrete got and I’m left to wonder if we have the full story here. I’m
curious if there are any other things going on with Alegrete that might
indicate additional reasons for his sweet sentencing deal.
Comments