Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CRIM. NO. 18-10092-WGY
)
RYAN S. LIN )
)

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The defendant, Ryan Lin, submits this memorandum to assist

the Court in determining an appropriate sentence in this case.

The defendant requests that this Court impose a sentence of 84

months incarceration with 60 months of supervised release. This

sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to

comply with the purposes enunciated by Congress in 18 U.S.C. §

3553(a).

Ryan Lin’s Background

Ryan Lin is 25 years old. He was born in Fuzhou, China in

1992, and was raised by his paternal grandparents until he was

three, while his parents obtained their graduate degrees in the

United States. In 1996, he joined his parents stateside, and at

age 15, he became a United States citizen, one of the proudest

memories of his young life. Ryan’s first words were in Chinese,

but he no longer speaks it and learned English while in school.

He has a younger sister, Reyna Lin.

1
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 2 of 33

Ryan had some developmental issues as an infant, including

issues chewing and eating until he was five. In a letter to the

Court, Ryan’s mother, Songlin Mo, states that around

kindergarten, she noticed Ryan had “social problems” after he

was assigned to the front seat of the bus because he had thrown

papers in response to humidity on the bus.1 Probation reported

that in their interview with Songlin, “she was concerned about

his anti-social behaviors, noting that he always struggled in

school and never had friends.”2

While attending schools in New Haven and North Branford,

Connecticut, Ryan received generally good grades. However, at

times, his behavior in school merited discipline, up to and

including suspension, a reflection of what would become “a long

and documented history of . . . odd behavior, including

impaired interpersonal interactions, difficulty with reasoning,

and demonstrating illogical behaviors.”3 Some of his teachers

noted Ryan needed to improve his listening skills and self-

discipline, while others noted he was an absolute pleasure to

have as a student.4

1
Exhibit A, Letter from Songlin Mo and Sean Lin (Ryan Lin’s
Parents).
2
PSR, pg. 43.
3
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
4
Exhibit C, School Records.
2
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 3 of 33

In middle school, Ryan was suspended twice for making

sexually inappropriate gestures with a wooden pole.5 He was also

suspended after he falsely claimed one of his peers was pregnant

and that he had seen another naked, and another time for sending

an inappropriate message to a female student.6 Overall, he

received 6 formal suspensions while at North Branford

Intermediate.7 Still, Ryan was a bright student, teaching himself

computer coding as a seventh grader.8 In response to these

incidents, Ryan was referred to a mental health provider who

concluded, “Ryan has his own rules and doesn’t follow social

rules.” As his mother states in her letter, the Lin family was

not able to continue with therapy because Ryan’s father

developed end stage kidney failure that required years of

intensive dialysis. She fears this hard choice turned out to be

“the biggest mistake of [her] life.”9

In high school, Ryan would harass other students, hacking

into Facebook profiles of classmates and posting negative

comments about them.10 However, he graduated on time, pursued

5
Exhibit C, School Records.
6
Exhibit C, School Records.
7
Exhibit C, School Records; he relayed to Dr. Mendoza that he
may have received as many as 20 suspensions, including in-school
suspensions which were not a part of the school records counsel
received.
8
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
9
Exhibit A, Letter from Songlin Mo and Sean Lin (Ryan Lin’s
Parents).
10
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
3
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 4 of 33

higher education, and his little sister Reyna notes in her

letter that he was always available to help her with her

computer science homework, pick her up from school when she was

sick, or make sure she was eating.11

Ryan attended Carnegie Mellon University to study computer

engineering. He had a conflict with his roommate while there and

ultimately dropped out after three semesters. He attended Hudson

Valley Community College, and then later, Rensselaer Polytechnic

Institute (RPI). While at RPI, he was the web master for the

International Chinese Study Association. At first, he was quite

popular with the group because of his computer skills, but after

a perceived slight, Ryan decided to delete the group’s entire

website. He graduated from RPI in 2015 with a degree in computer

science, magna cum laude, with a 3.8 cumulative GPA.

While Ryan is close with his family, he has very few

friends, a reflection of his lifelong struggle with the

interpersonal relationships that are reflective of a healthy

emotional life. He has not maintained any friendships from any

of his schooling, and moreover, the relationships he did have

were marked by harassment. He has never had a romantic

relationship. His younger sister, Reyna, noted that he was

especially awkward with girls and women, and that he would “step

11
Exhibit D, Letter from Reyna Lin.
4
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 5 of 33

on people’s toes to annoy them.”12 His parents also recall times

where Ryan would talk to himself, or exhibit strange tics,

including random spasms of his hands or eyes.13 Other than his

computer, Ryan has never held a hobby, other passion, or

interest.

After college, Ryan moved to Boston, holding exclusively

software development positions. Although this field is one where

his interests and skill set lie, he had trouble keeping a job,

because of his odd behavior that anyone would recognize as

counterproductive to career success. He had issues focusing and

paying attention, bristled against supervisors, and problems in

interpersonal relations, as well as issues communicating and

socializing and as a result, performed his work poorly.

Ryan’s interpersonal struggles were not confined to the

workplace. As detailed in his own letters to the Court, these

struggles only increased when he moved to Boston, away from his

family, his sole source of support, to pursue his career. He

experienced difficulties with his roommates on a consistent

basis, regardless of where he was living. Ryan would run up and

down the stairs of the apartment; leave the water running in the

sinks; turn on all the lights and fans without reason; fill up

kitchen bottles and cans with oil, water, sugar, salt, detergent

12
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
13
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
5
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 6 of 33

and hand sanitizer and place them around the apartment; smear

yogurt around the living room;14 and hid bags of garbage and

spoiled food in the closet.15 When confronted about these

incidents, he would deny his role, or state that he had no

recollection of his odd behavior. As time went on, Ryan’s

behavior worsened to the point that even he realized something

was wrong, and Ryan unsuccessfully sought professional help for

his problems. One therapist declined to accept Ryan as a patient

because he did not have the requisite experience in Autism

Spectrum Disorders and therefore could not provide Ryan with the

treatment he desperately needed.16

Ryan’s Mental Health Evaluation and Diagnosis

Dr. Robert Mendoza, Psy. D. evaluated Ryan at Wyatt

Detention Center (“Wyatt”), where he is being held pursuant to

these charges. He found, after reviewing Ryan’s medical and

school records, and speaking with the Lin family, that “there is

substantial data to support the diagnostic criteria set forth in

the [DSM-5] for Autism Spectrum Disorder Overall Between

17
Severity Level 1 and 2.” He found that Ryan demonstrates:

 Persistent deficits in social communication and social

interaction;

14
ECF No. 4, “Criminal Complaint,” pg. 7, ¶ 17.
15
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
16
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation).
17
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation)at pg. 9.
6
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 7 of 33

 Significant deficit interpreting nonverbal and verbal

social cues; and

 Abnormally high focus and intensity on restrictive and

repetitive behaviors related to specialized interests, and

distress when aspects of his life do not remain precisely

the same.

Dr. Mendoza also found that these behaviors were present in

Ryan’s early development and have persisted throughout his life.

Ryan’s symptoms “have led to clinically significant impairment

in multiple aspects of his life including social engagements,

occupational pursuits, and day-to-day functioning including

relationships with housemates.”18

Ryan’s Autism Spectrum Disorder and resultant poor

interpersonal skills make him more than just a disagreeable

person and directly weigh on the charges of criminal conduct

before this Court. Again, according to Dr. Mendoza, “an odd,

illogical, inflexible, obsessive, compulsive, and self-

destructive pattern of thought behavior appears to have

motivated Mr. Lin to engage in using technology for socially

inappropriate and disruptive purposes.”19 As counterintuitive as

it may seem, Ryan used a pattern of illogical harassment as a

way to understand others, “to engage that person and to learn

18
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation) at pg. 9.
19
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation) at pg. 10.
7
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 8 of 33

more about them.”20 Even when he recognizes the irrational nature

of such an approach, Ryan cannot help himself, lacking the self-

regulation to stop and finding comfort in repetition, even as

that repetition resulted in escalated harm to his victims. In

fact, this type of repetitive, obsessive and unrelenting

behavior in the face of known consequences, is, according to Dr.

Mendoza, consistent for individuals with Autism Spectrum

Disorder. As Dr. Mendoza points out:

Mr. Lin has spent a lifetime being ignored by others,

bullied by some, and most likely marginalized in
whatever educational or vocational setting that he was
in. Mr. Lin understood at an early age that he could
use computers to reach others in ways that he couldn’t
otherwise. While he saw the consequences of these
engagements as potentially negative . . . it was still
the only way to have others begin a discussion with
him. The extent of the reaction from others, as well
the consequences, was less relevant to him than having
someone not respond to him at all.21

Ryan has been incarcerated at Wyatt since his arrest and

his odd behaviors have continued, as one would expect without

adequate treatment for his condition. As recently as May 2018,

officials noted that there were loud noises coming from Ryan’s

cell and discovered he was punching himself in the face, because

he was “bored.”22 There are several reports of this type of self-

injurious behavior which is common for those with Autism

Spectrum Disorder and other developmental disabilities – in a

20
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation) at pg. 10.
21
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation) at pg. 11.
22
Exhibit E, Wyatt Medical Records.
8
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 9 of 33

study of over 8,000 children with Autism Spectrum Disorder, over

one in four (28%) were found to engage in banging of the head,

poking their own eyes, pulling their own hair, or biting,

hitting and pinching themselves.23 According to Probation, in

December 2017, the defendant was referred to mental health

services at Wyatt and diagnosed by the institution with

Asperger’s Syndrome and anxiety.24

In the Government’s submission regarding Supplemental

Offense Conduct, they state that they received information from

an anonymous informant detainee that Ryan was injuring himself

in order to bolster his “autism defense.” As discussed infra,

this unidentified source of information is not credible, and all

of his statements should be summarily disregarded by this Court.

Further, it borders on obscene, and a violation of the

Government’s duty not to discriminate against those with

disabilities, to accuse Ryan of “faking” his Autism Spectrum

Disorder; any reasonable party, including the Government itself,

must admit that Ryan’s behavior leading up and during the

criminal conduct was strange and indicative of someone with a

very real mental health problem. There is no reason to doubt the

23
Soke, Gnakaub N, et al., Prevalence of Self-Injurious
Behaviors Among Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder – A
Population-Based Study, 11 J. AUTISM DEV. DISORD. 46 (Nov. 2016).
24
Presentence Investigation Report. Asperger’s was in the DSM-IV
but removed from the DSM-V and replaced with diagnosis of autism
spectrum disorder, as Dr. Mendoza uses in his report.
9
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 10 of 33

credibility of Dr. Mendoza or the doctors at Wyatt (federal

employees), who both came to the conclusion that Ryan is indeed

autistic. The only reason Ryan engaged in any of this behavior

was because of his mental health condition, and the allegations

of the Government’s anonymous informant are not enough to

dispute this fact.

An Appropriate Sentence

This case is before the Court following the defendant’s

guilty plea to an Information charging him with seven counts of

cyber stalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B); five

counts of distribution of child pornography in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2); nine counts of hoax bomb threats in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(e); three counts of computer fraud

and abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1030(a)(2)(C) and

(c)(2)(B); and one count of aggravated identity theft in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. Ryan understands that, post-

incarceration, he will be required to register as a sex

offender, and that failure to do so could subject him to new

criminal charges pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2250. Further, the

parties, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) have agreed to:

incarceration for 84-210 months; a fine within the guidelines,

unless Ryan is unable to pay; 60 months of supervised release;

$2,500 special assessment; and restitution as determined by the

Court. Probation reviewed Ryan’s finances and confirms he does

10
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 11 of 33

not have an ability to pay and no restitution claims have been

made to date.25 Therefore he requests that no other fines, fees

or restitution be imposed in excess of the $2,500 mandatory

special assessment.

Given the outsized impact that his undiagnosed Autism

Spectrum Disorder has on Ryan’s criminal conduct, the defendant

requests that this Court adopt his sentencing recommendation of

84 months and 60 months of supervised release, which is within

the range the parties have agreed is “a reasonable and

appropriate disposition of this case.”26 Although this is below

the guideline range, it is consistent with other below-guideline

sentences for similar conduct issued by this Court and other

judges in this district, discussed infra, and is a sentence

sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the

purposes set forth in 17 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Further, it is the

mandatory minimum sentence set by the child pornography and

aggravated identity theft offenses, the latter which must be

served consecutively.

As the Court appreciates, the advisory guideline sentencing

range is the “starting point and the initial benchmark” but it

is not the only consideration in the sentencing analysis. Gall

v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007). There is no

25
PSR, pgs. 48 and 50, ¶ 238-241, and 258.
26
March 30, 2018 Change of Plea Agreement, ECF No. 31, pg. 6.
11
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 12 of 33

presumption that a guideline range is reasonable. Id. at 50. The

Court must ultimately “make an individualized assessment based

on the facts presented.” Id. The Court conducts a case-by-case

analysis, “the hallmark of which is flexibility.” United States

v. Martin, 520 F.3d 87, 91 (1st Cir. 2008). The overarching goal

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.” Id. quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 52.

Ryan understands that what he did was wrong, and he is

ashamed to let down his parents who worked so hard to make a

better life for him in this country. He understands he must be

held accountable for all of his conduct, but seeks proportionate

punishment which takes into account the medical mitigating

factors present in his case. He asks that this Court consider

his conduct in light of his undiagnosed condition; a condition

he did seek help for, but was ultimately unsuccessful in

treating on his own.

The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

Ryan’s crime is unlike that of other defendants in the

federal system. This is because, tragically, Ryan has been

struggling with an undiagnosed developmental disorder for his

entire life. As research in this field shows, there is a

connection between those, who like Ryan, have a deficit of

12
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 13 of 33

interpersonal skills or an ability to respond to social

constraints on their behavior, and criminal behavior.27 Research

in Autism Spectrum Disorder and Asperger’s suggests that four

factors predispose individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder to

commit crimes, including social naiveté, aggression triggered by

disrupted routine, aggression due to social misunderstanding,

and obsessive behavior with a lack of understanding of the

implications of that behavior.28 Additionally, lack of empathy,

an inability to consistently control emotions, and issues

associated with “moral reasoning” can increase the exposure

within the criminal justice system for individuals with Autism

Spectrum Disorder.29 All of these factors played a role in Ryan’s

conduct and it is only through the lens of this disorder that we

can adequately evaluate his behavior. “Individuals with deficits

in central coherence may engage in criminal behavior because of

their excessive preoccupation with highly focused internal

interests, while ignoring social consequences, including legal

sanctions.”30

27
Barbara Haskins and J. Arturo Silva, Asperger's Disorder and
Criminal Behavior: Forensic-Psychiatric Considerations, J. Am.
Acad. Psych. and Law, 34 (2006).
28
Howlin P, Autism: Preparing for Adulthood (2nd Ed. 2004).
29
King C and Murphy GH, “A Systematic Review of People with
Autism Spectrum Disorders and Criminal Justice System”, J. AUTISM
& DEV. DISORDERS (2014).
30
Id.
13
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 14 of 33

Indeed, Ryan’s behavior continued, even as legal sanctions

were, to any reasonable observer, forthcoming. As early as

Spring/Summer 2016, Watertown police issued warnings to Lin

about his harassing behavior, and on August 1, 2016 a harassment

prevention order issued from Waltham District Court against Lin

on behalf of one of his roommates, Amanda Johnson.31 In part of

Ryan’s diary that was seized, he notes in November 2016 that he

is concerned about the police.32 In January 2017, he treats a

threat by Wellesley Police to file a criminal complaint as

“obviously a trick.”33 On April 20, 2017 he writes in his seized

diary that he has sent out Smith’s diary to her contact list and

mentions his belief that the police have given up because Ryan

would not pick up the phone.34 In May 2017, Ryan finds out the

police have issued a subpoena for one of his email accounts used

during the harassment and acknowledges this “is really bad.”35

Even as he had this direct evidence that the police were

interested in stopping his behavior and expressed his own

internal concerns, Ryan could not stop himself. The harassment

he started in April 2016 continued through the time of Ryan’s

31
Although the victim’s name is known to the parties, an
anonymous pseudonym is used for her and all victims throughout,
in accordance with the practice established by the Government in
their initial pleadings.
32
Government’s Statement of Offense.
33
Id.
34
PSR, pg. 21.
35
Id.
14
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 15 of 33

arrest in October 2017, and mainly focused on another roommate

he and Johnson shared the apartment with, Jennifer Smith.36

Ryan’s persistent harassment in spite of increasing police

pressure is a direct reflection of his Autism Spectrum Disorder,

which is marked by obsessive and compulsive behaviors, and his

actions must be evaluated within that context.

From April 2016 through October 2017, Ryan repeatedly

accessed many of Smith’s online accounts, including her private

journal which she kept in an electronic format, as well as her

electronic devices. Ryan pretended to be Smith by sending e-

mails and messages from her online accounts; obtaining her

medical, tax and financial records without her permission or

knowledge; posting on sexual fetish websites pretending to be

Smith, including her home address, and inviting men to show up

for sex, three of whom actually did travel to Smith’s home;

telling a pet owner client of Smith’s that she had killed the

pet which prompted a panicked call to police who confronted

Smith herself; applying for unemployment on Smith’s behalf;

cancelling her driver’s license registration; filing a bank

application; and sending child pornography, again from one of

Smith’s accounts, to Smith’s mother, father, co-workers, and

36
Supra Note 26.
15
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 16 of 33

friends. As to the child pornography, there were approximately

12 such photos that Ryan possessed and further distributed.37

Ryan’s harassment of Smith also extended to her family

members, who received messages from Ryan that accused Smith’s

mother of molesting Smith and her brother as children; discussed

Smith in a sexual manner; and threatened to rape or kill Smith

and her mother. Ryan posed as Smith’s mother and her boss in e-

mails and on Facebook, and threatened to bring guns to nearby

high schools, which also led to police responses; a bomb threat

was also made to Maryland police who were dispatched to Smith’s

mother’s home. In all, the Government alleges that Ryan made

over a hundred anonymous hoax bomb threats.

Ryan targeted Smith’s employer and friends in a similar

manner, with threatening and sexual text messages and images.

When Ryan moved away from the home he shared with Smith, he

continued his harassment with his new housemates. He sent them

harassing and threatening text messages that included personal

identifying information, indicating their harasser knew where

they lived, worked, and had gone to school.

This behavior is abhorrent, to be sure. However, it is also

the reflection of a young man with an undiagnosed and dormant

37
Ryan also sent child pornography and threatening
communications to two individuals he went to college with; one
with whom he was friendly and another whom he did not know
personally.

16
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 17 of 33

mental health condition. With no understanding or treatment of

his Autism Spectrum Disorder, and without an outlet to release

his frustrations that came from not understanding those in the

world around him, it is not surprising that Ryan lashed out.

What is surprising is the extent of the harassment and the

period over which it took place; a term of imprisonment of 84

months, is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to punish

this behavior. As Dr. Mendoza notes in his report, “While Mr.

Lin cognitively understands what it means to bring physical and

emotional harm to others, he simply does not have much of the

neurology associated with appreciating what that might actually

mean on an emotional level.”38 An 84-month sentence punishes him

adequately for the conduct he engaged in, while acknowledging

the role that an uncontrolled and unknown condition played here.

Enhancements and Reductions

The Government takes the position that Ryan is subject to a

two level enhancement under 2G2.2(b)(3)(F). However, this

enhancement is redundant to the conduct charged in the statute

as it supplies an enhancement for “knowingly” engaging in

distribution, where the statute itself, 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(2)

already requires that the defendant “knowingly” distribute child

pornography. Further, it is clear that Ryan was not distributing

the photos in an attempt to perpetuate or participate in the

38
Exhibit B, Dr. Mendoza report (evaluation) at pg. 11.
17
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 18 of 33

market for such obscene images, a fact which distinguishes him

from others charged with this conduct.

Similarly, where 96.3% of all federal child pornography

cases involve the use of a computer enhancement, which the

Government also seeks, it is worth considering whether this

enhancement is truly a reflection of “Specific Offense

Characteristics,” as the Sentencing Guidelines refers to it or

whether use of a computer is “all but inherent to the crime of

conviction” as the Second Circuit described it. United States v.

Dorvee, 616 F.3d 174, 184-85 (2nd Cir. 2010). That court

described the child pornography guidelines as “an eccentric

Guideline, of highly unusual provenance which, unless carefully

applied, can easily generate unreasonable results” and as

“fundamentally incompatible with § 3553(a).” Id. at 187-88.

Similarly, the Sentencing Commission, in a report to Congress,

found that several of the sentencing enhancements, including the

computer enhancement, apply in the vast majority of non-

production Child Pornography cases, again calling into question

whether this enhancement is a specific offense characteristic,

or part and parcel to the crime itself.39 Where there is

virtually no way to disseminate child pornography without the

39
See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Report to the Congress: Federal Child
Pornography Offenses at 5, 209 (2012)(available at
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional
_Testimony_and_Reports/Sex_Offense_Topics/201212_Federal_Child_P
ornography_Offenses/index.cfm).
18
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 19 of 33

use of a computer, the two-level enhancement should not be

applied.

The Government also reserves the right to increase the

offense level by four, because Ryan distributed material that

portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct, under guideline

2G2.2(b)(4). Only prong (A) of the guideline conceivably applies

because the material Ryan distributed did not involve an infant

or toddler as required under prong (B); (A) does not apply

because the photo the government points to as being sadistic or

masochistic40 does not equate to the plain meaning or case-law

interpretations of those words.

The Guidelines do not specify what constitutes “sadistic or

masochistic conduct or other depictions of violence.” U.S.S.G.

§2G2.2(b)(4); United States v. Hoey, 508 F. 3d 687, 691 (1st

Cir. 2007). Merriam-Webster defines “sadistic” as “taking

pleasure in the infliction of pain, punishment, or humiliation

on others.”41 As examples, they refer to “a leg . . . sawed off

in sections by a sadistic surgeon,” or “an especially sadistic

buddy gave me a video of me falling off my skateboard nearly 160

40
Neither the Government nor Probation rely on masochism as
grounds for this enhancement; only the word “sadistic” is used
to describe the nature of the photographs. See, Government’s
Statement of Offense at pg. 32 and Presentence Investigation
Report at pg. 24.
41
“Sadistic,” Merriam-Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/sadistic, (last accessed Aug. 14, 2018).
19
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 20 of 33

times.”42 “An image’s portrayal of sadistic conduct includes

portrayal of conduct a viewer would likely think is causing pain

to a depicted young child.” Hoey, 508 F.3d at 691.

Although Ryan did send twelve child pornography images,

none of them meet this definition. The specific image the

Government relies upon for this enhancement is one of a

prepubescent female, sitting on a toilet, with a pencil inserted

into her vagina. There was no indication that the female is in

pain,43 unlike in Hoey, where “the young child’s pained

expression [was] sufficient to establish that the picture is

intended to give the viewer pleasure based on the child’s actual

or anticipated pain.” 508 F.3d at 692; see also United States v.

Cover, 800 F.3d 275, 280 (6th Cir. 2015) (holding that where

there was “no indication that [the female minor] was visibly

pained” the enhancement for sadism did not apply). Further, the

pencil was inserted eraser tip first, suggesting that the object

was being used for its phallic nature and not its potential to

inflict pain. The Government paints with too broad a brush when

it attempts to increase Ryan’s sentence by characterizing this

specific photo as sadistic.44 Probation did not apply this

42
Id.
43
Her facial expression is more accurately described as “bored.”
44
See U.S. Sent’g Comm’n, Report to the Congress: Federal Child
Pornography Offenses at 5, 209 (2012)(available at
http://www.ussc.gov/Legislative_and_Public_Affairs/Congressional
_Testimony_and_Reports/Sex_Offense_Topics/201212_Federal_Child_P
20
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 21 of 33

enhancement because “it does believe that reasonable minds could

interpret the application of this guideline either way”45 and

neither should this Court.

The cases that the Government cites in their Supplemental

Offense Conduct and Guidelines point to out of circuit cases

that have held that different foreign objects were sadistic,

where “a highlighter and a handle of a screwdriver” or a “large

carrot” were inserted into a young girl’s vagina. United States

v. Johnson, 784 F.3d 1070, 1075 (7th Cir. 2015); United States

v. Parker, 267 F.3d 839, 847 (8th Cir. 2001). However, these

items are different in both length and width, which

distinguishes them from the pencil at issue here. Further, the

Parker court applied the adjustment even where there was no

evidence of pain, contrary to the First Circuit’s holding that

pain or anticipated pain is what makes the image sadistic. Hoey,

508 F.3d at 691. Where the pencil was already inserted,

anticipated pain is no longer the issue; either the girl is in

pain or she is not, and it is clear from the expression on her

face that she was not experiencing pain.

Probation takes issue with the parties’ agreement that Ryan

should benefit from a three-level reduction, in accordance with

USSG § 3E1.1, agreed to “based on Defendant’s prompt acceptance

ornography_Offenses/index.cfm ).
45
Presentence Investigation Report, pg. 61.
21
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 22 of 33

of personal responsibility.”46 Probation asserts that “there are

no extraordinary circumstances justifying a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility.”47 However, nothing in the plain-

text reading of the Guidelines indicates that such a reduction

is only applicable in “extraordinary circumstances.” Rather, the

rule reads, “[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance

of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by

2 levels.” USSG § 3E1.1(a). An additional level of reduction is

applicable where, like here, the defendant “timely notif[ies]

authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby

permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and

permitting the government and the court to allocate their

resources efficiently.” USSG § 3E1.1(b). Ryan entered a guilty

plea on May 09, 2018 and should get the benefit of the

reduction.

Probation cites to personal papers found in a warrantless

search of his cell at Wyatt as a basis to deny a reduction for

acceptance of responsibility. It is clear that these drawings

and papers, like Ryan’s behavior more generally, are due to his

untreated Autism Spectrum Disorder. There are medical reports

that Ryan engages in self-harm, punching himself in the face and

arms. Ryan only ever had one hobby, interest or skill –

46
Plea Agreement, pg. 5.
47
Presentence Investigation Report, pg. 25, ¶ 104.
22
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 23 of 33

computers. Therefore, these drawings should be evaluated in the

context of an individual who has had to simultaneously cope with

his first incarceration, the news that he has had an undiagnosed

mental health disorder for his entire life, and the loss of

access to computers, his only source of comfort or distraction.

The drawings do not reflect a concrete plan to commit

wrongdoing, and only really provide details on how to obfuscate

your online identity, and how the government is able to get

around those smoke screens. This is not inherently criminal

behavior – hiding your identity online, or describing how to do

so, is not a crime. Mr. Lin did not receive a disciplinary

report.48

Further, Probation reports that a book on computer hacking

was found in another inmate’s cell. All books that inmates

receive must be preapproved by Wyatt administrators. Further, it

is unclear how possessions found in another’s cell are

attributable to Ryan and should not serve as a basis for denying

him the reduction that his plea provides. Mr. Lin did not

receive a disciplinary report for this – his only disciplinary

reports are for refusing to stand for count, twice.49 Similarly,

Probation stated that Ryan was found hacking the prison library

computer, but Wyatt did not issue a ticket, even though this

48
See Exhibit F, Disciplinary Reports.
49
Exhibit F, Disciplinary Reports.
23
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 24 of 33

would be a serious and concerning violation of institutional

rules.50 Ryan has not received a disciplinary report since March

16, 2018, and only has two in total.51

The other drawings found in Ryan’s cell are a list of

countries, with facts taken from the CIA World Fact Book; a list

of chemistry equations from an Introductory Chemistry textbook;

and book summaries, including of the Art of Seduction. The

Government sets forth a compelling narrative, planted by an

anonymous jail informant, that all of these drawings taken

together indicate a nefarious plan to bomb Government lawyers

and flee to the Dominican Republic.52 However, each of these

drawings has a reasonable explanation.

Ryan is understandably concerned about finding a job as a

convicted felon, post-release. He started making a list of

countries that he could move to, which included the Dominican

Republic. It did not include China on the list, because Ryan

does not speak Mandarin or Cantonese, making it an unlikely

place to “flee” to being neither on his list, nor a place where

he is likely to be able to provide a life for himself post-

incarceration. Post-release visualization is a healthy part of

50
See Exhibit F, Disciplinary Reports. Per a conversation with
Probation Officer, an incident report was issued, but no
sanction was given to Ryan, indicating that Wyatt itself did not
take the matter seriously as a security threat.
51
Exhibit F, Disciplinary Reports.
52
Supplemental Offense Conduct, pg. 6.
24
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 25 of 33

one’s rehabilitation and it is a shame that the Government seeks

to turn a virtue into a vice based on the unverified accusations

of an untrustworthy third party.

Next, the Government points to Chemistry formulae as

evidence of a bomb plot. However, they would be unable to point

to any specific formula as the recipe for creating a bomb,

because none exists within these drawings. These drawings

represent introductory chemistry knowledge. They show conversion

rates for feet, yard and miles; how to measure reaction

quotients and energy; the point at which solid, liquid and vapor

coexist in equilibrium; the molarity concentrations of

solutions; the ideal gas laws; and quantum formulae. The only

concerning part of this is that Government lawyers could not

distinguish between benign chemistry principles and a verifiable

bomb recipe.

Lastly, there are drawings described as a “chart regarding

luring victims.” This would be concerning, if this wasn’t in

fact a chart of the steps set forth in “The Art of Seduction” by

Robert Greene. A cursory Google search reveals all of the steps

in the chart are discussed in the book, making it more likely

that this is Ryan taking notes while reading a book, trying to

understand interpersonal relationships, rather than a plot to

make more victims. Other book summaries exist in Ryan’s

drawings, which were all in a folder marked Attorney-Client

25
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 26 of 33

privilege, lending credence to this, rather than the

Government’s, view of the evidence. The Government, in its zeal

to paint Ryan as a villain, has not done its due diligence in

reviewing claims of a bomb plot, and all of the accusations in

the Supplemental Offense Conduct should be summarily ignored.

Collateral Consequences

In determining a sentence, the minimum mandatory is further

warranted due to the profound effect that the collateral

consequences of this case have had, and will continue to have,

on this defendant.

Judge Frederick Block of the Eastern District of New York

has stated:

I am writing this opinion because from my research and

experience over two decades as a district judge,
sufficient attention has not been paid at sentencing
by me and lawyers – both prosecutors and defense
counsel – as well as by the Probation Department in
rendering its pre-sentence reports, to the collateral
consequences facing a convicted defendant.

United States v. Nesbeth, 188 F.Supp.3d 179 (E.D.N.Y. 2016).

Judge Block further noted that “there is a broad range of

collateral consequences that serve no useful function other than

to further punish criminal defendants after they have completed

their court-imposed sentences.” Id. at 180. “[T]he effects of

these collateral consequences can be devastating.” Id. As

several courts have recognized, collateral consequences of

conviction, such as registration as a sex offender, are relevant

26
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 27 of 33

to the “need” for the sentence imposed to reflect just

punishment. See, e.g. United States v. Garate, 543 F.3d 1026,

1028 (8th Cir. 2008) (overruling prior holding that it was

inappropriate for the district court to consider the lasting

effects of sex offender registration in sentencing); United

States v. Pauley¸ 511 F.3d 468, 474-75 (4th Cir. 2007)

(affirming a district court’s lower sentence because the

defendant lost his teaching job and pension as a result of his

conduct).

It is well-established that the collateral consequences of

child pornography convictions are extreme. What follows

defendants who commit this class of crime is nothing short of a

lifetime of shame and humiliation. Ryan will have to register as

a sex offender, and that will hinder his eligibility for housing

and employment. This is especially punitive for someone as young

as Ryan, whose adult life had just barely begun at this time of

this offense, and who unlike other distributors of child

pornography has no pedophilic tendencies, but will nevertheless

be branded as having them due to the nature of the conviction.

Further, this conviction will follow him the rest of his life,

regardless of whether he successfully treats his Autism Spectrum

Disorder underlying this offense. For a young man now only 25

years old, this conviction carries a lifetime of shame and

punishment.

27
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 28 of 33

As mentioned throughout, Ryan’s only skill relates to

computers. This sentence and the nature of the child pornography

conviction will be an enormous barrier to employment in his

field. After his sentence, he will have internet monitoring

software on all of his devices, and will have to have any work

computers approved by the Probation Office. It is hard to

imagine any employer taking on this extra burden, and Ryan may

struggle looking for employment for quite some time.

The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities

The defendant’s conduct is similar to other cases in this

district where sentences below the guideline range have been

imposed for defendants convicted of child pornography offenses,

the most serious class of offense with which Ryan is charged.

In United States v. Starr, 3:12-CR-30036-WGY, this Court

sentenced the defendant to 42 months imprisonment, after he pled

guilty to 18 U.S.C. § 2252. This represented a downward

departure from the mandatory minimum of 60 months, where the

Government requested 57 months and the defendant was in

possession of a child pornography cache with 2,900 video files

and more than 100,000 image files. The defendant, like Lin, had

an undiagnosed mental health disorder (Obsessive Compulsive

behavior) that the Court noted was uncontrolled and untreated

until after discovery of the files. What differentiates Lin from

this and other defendants is where most possessors of child

28
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 29 of 33

pornography have a sexual interest in the children depicted

therein, Ryan was instead using the prurient nature of the

photographs to cause emotional distress to others, not because

he harbors a perverse sexual attraction to children. This was a

result of his interpersonal deficits, and once he started, he

simply lacked the skills to stop, and had no idea that Autism

Spectrum Disorder was in fact driving the majority of his

behavior.

In United States v. Pallazola, 1:13‐cr‐10091‐WGY, this Court

sentenced the defendant to 300 months imprisonment, where the

guidelines called for 360-840 months, after he pled guilty to 18

U.S.C. § 2251(a) (Sexual Exploitation of a Child) and 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2252(a)(2) and (a)(4)(B). This Court accurately noted that

the guidelines allowed for more time in this case, but that the

mandatory minimum of 25 years was “sufficient and not greater

than necessary to accomplish the rules”53 because the defendant

actually produced child pornography, forcing a minor to engage

in sexual acts “for the purpose of producing a visual depiction

of such conduct.”54 As this Court noted, and what should

distinguish from Ryan’s case, the 25-year mandatory minimum was

appropriate because the defendant’s actions were “hideous” and

were “an extreme degree of physical and emotional horror.” The

53
Sentencing Transcript, 1:13‐cr‐10091‐WGY.
54
Indictment, ECF No. 12, Filed 04/02/13, 1:13‐cr‐10091‐WGY.
29
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 30 of 33

mandatory minimum was sufficient to punish that abhorrent

conduct, and here the minimum is similarly sufficient to punish

Ryan’s lesser, but still far out of societal bounds, behavior.

A review of 83 cases, spanning 2008-2018 from D. Mass., and

involving Child Pornography receipt, possession, or distribution

charges reflect that only one case went above the guidelines, 63

went below and 19 were within the Sentencing Guidelines. There

were 25 cases at or below the mandatory minimum of 5 years.

In another harassment case before this Court, United States

v. Connor, 15-10398-WGY, the defendant was sentenced to 26 days

time served, 36 months supervised release, with home confinement

for the first 10 months, which was a departure from the

guidelines of 24-30 months. There, the defendant engaged in

cyberstalking and extortion after a young woman decided to end

their romantic relationship. The defendant also threatened

physical harm and contacted the victim’s friends and family in

order to continue his harassment, and threatened to share naked

photos of the victim with people she cared about. In deciding

not to impose incarceration, this Court noted that the defendant

was a “very mixed up young man” with the “wrong idea about

relationships with women.” Further, your Honor noted that

“putting you behind bars for two years is not going to help

you.” Ryan was similarly a very mixed up young man, with an

undiagnosed condition, and seven years in prison, while not

30
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 31 of 33

helping him, will serve as a deterrent to him and to others who

use the internet to harass victims and carry out threats.

Lastly, the government requests an extremely punitive

sentence of 210 months, or 17.5 years. This reflects a sentence

that is greater than the sentence for forcible rape of an adult,

killing a person in voluntary manslaughter, disclosing top

secret national defense information, or violent extortion of

more than $5 million involving serious bodily injury.55

Conclusion

A sentence of 84 months incarceration is an appropriate

punishment for Ryan Lin. It holds him responsible for the crimes

he committed, while taking into account his lack of prior

criminal record, his underlying condition, and the sentences

imposed in similar and more serious cases. For these reasons,

the defendant urges the Court to impose the mandatory minimum

sentence. For safety reasons and given the non-violent nature of

his conduct, he requests placement by the Bureau of Prisons at

FCCI-Danbury. He joins Probation’s recommendation to RDAP.56

RYAN S. LIN

55
Mark Osler, “Amoral Numbers and Narcotics Sentencing,”
University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) Legal Studies Research
paper No. 13-21, 2013,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers,.cfm?abstract_id=2271380
(last accessed Aug. 22, 2018). See USSC, “2016 Guidelines
Manual,”
http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_PDF/2016_G
uidelines_Manual_Full.pdf, §§ 2A3.1, 2A1.2, 2B3.2, 2M3.3.
56
PSR, pg. 46, ¶ 225.
31
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 32 of 33

By His Attorneys

CARNEY & ASSOCIATES

J. W. Carney, Jr.
J. W. Carney, Jr.
B.B.O. # 074760

Reyna Ramirez
B.B.O. # 698630

Carney & Associates

20 Park Plaza, Suite 1405
Boston, MA 02116
617-933-0350
[email protected]
September 26, 2017

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 or
before the above date.

J. W. Carney, Jr.
J. W. Carney, Jr.

32
Case 1:18-cr-10092-WGY Document 38 Filed 09/26/18 Page 33 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) CRIM. NO. 18-10092-WGY
)
RYAN S. LIN )
)

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

I, J. W. Carney, Jr., state that the facts contained in the

attached motion are true to the best of my information and

belief.

Signed under the penalties of perjury.

J. W. Carney, Jr.
J. W. Carney, Jr.
September 26, 2017

33