Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID 919

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 8:22-cr-156-KKM-CPT

JORDAN PATRICK LEAHY

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United

States Attorney, hereby submits its sentencing memorandum. As further explained

below, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), the United States respectfully submits that

a high-end guideline-sentence is appropriate in this case.

I. Procedural History

On April 28, 2022, a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa

Division, returned a two-count indictment charging the defendant, Jordan Patrick

Leahy, with Interference with Federally Protected Activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 245(b)(2)(B). Doc. 1. Count One is a felony offense, while Count Two is a

misdemeanor. The charges arose from an incident that took place on August 8, 2021,

where the defendant physically and verbally assaulted a family returning home from

dinner, all while shouting racial slurs at them. See Presentence Investigation Report

(“PSR”), Doc. 98, ¶¶ 7-12. The defendant proceeded to trial and, on August 24, 2022,

the jury convicted him of the felony count, but acquitted him of the misdemeanor. See

Verdict Form, Doc. 74. The court has scheduled the sentencing hearing in this case to

take place on November 7, 2022. Doc. 95.

Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 10 PageID 920

II. Presentence Investigation Report

On November 3, 2022, the U.S. Probation Office issued its final Presentence

Investigation Report (“PSR”). Doc. 98. It determined the defendant’s applicable

guideline-range for the underlying offense as 57 to 71 months’ imprisonment, based

on an adjusted total-offense level of 21 and a criminal history category of IV. Id. at ¶

86. The United States has no legal or factual objections to the PSR. In relevant part,

the defendant maintains legal objections to paragraph 20, which sets the base offense

level at 14 because the offense underlying the count of conviction is Aggravated

Assault, and paragraph 21, which increases the offense level by three because the

defendant selected the victim based upon race or color. For the reasons that follow,

this court should overrule these objections.

A. Base Offense Level Objection

In the instant case, the court must apply a base offense level of 14 for the

underlying offense (see U.S.S.G. § 2H1.1(a)(1)), which is Aggravated Assault (see

U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2). Aggravated assault is any felonious assault involving a dangerous

weapon and intent to cause bodily injury with that weapon. U.S.S.G. § 2A2.2, cmt. n.

1. There is no doubt that the defendant’s assault involved a dangerous weapon, as the

jury has already made that determination beyond a reasonable doubt. See Doc. 74. The

only remaining question is whether the defendant’s tailgating, swerving, and colliding

with victim J.T.’s car was done with the intent to cause bodily injury or—as the

defendant contends—simply to frighten the victim.

2
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 10 PageID 921

At trial, J.T. testified that on August 8, 2021, the defendant drove his car

alongside J.T.’s car. Trial Transcript, Doc. 84 at 39-40. The defendant appeared

“upset” and “enraged,” and gestured with his hands as if he was shooting into J.T.’s

car. Id. at 40-42. The defendant tried to run J.T. off of the road, which J.T. evaded. Id.

at 43. The defendant then followed so closely that J.T. believed that the defendant was

attempting to strike his bumper and cause J.T. to lose control of his car. Id. at 43-44.

Finally, the defendant tried to run J.T. off of the road again—this time, making contact

with J.T.’s car. Id. at 45. J.T. was only able to avoid the brunt of the crash by swerving

into an adjacent lane. Id. While certainly frightening, the defendant’s prolonged

vehicular assault of the victim and his family independently establishes that the

defendant intended to cause bodily injury.

But, moreover, the defendant’s own statements belie the argument that he only

intended to only frighten J.T. As the defendant was being transported from the scene,

he made a series of statements reflecting his desire to kill or harm others, all of which

were captured on the patrol vehicle’s camera. See Doc. 50, Exhibit B, p. 4. For

example, the defendant asked, “Do you know how bad I want to kill people?” The

defendant made his intention even more explicit that evening when he explained what

he intended to do to a responding officer. Specifically, the defendant stated that he was

“trying to pick a fight with some random-ass fucking colored people.” Considering the

defendant’s actions and statements in conjunction, it is clear that his conduct was not

done to merely to frighten J.T.

3
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 10 PageID 922

B. Victim Related Adjustment Objection

The court must apply a three-level increase to the defendant’s offense level if it

finds that he intentionally selected J.T. because of actual or perceived race or color.

U.S.S.G. § 3A1.1(a). This determination must be made beyond a reasonable doubt by

the finder of fact at trial. Id. In the instant case, the jury has already decided that the

defendant selected J.T. because he was black, therefore, the three-level increase should

be assessed.

On August 24, 2022, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty of

Interference with Federally Protected Activities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §

245(b)(2)(B). See Doc. 74. Necessarily, the jurors agreed that the United States had

proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the third element of that offense had been met,

specifically, that “the defendant acted because of J.T.’s race or color; in other words,

that the defendant acted because J.T. was black.” See Court’s Jury Instructions, Doc.

77, p. 6. Furthermore, in evaluating this issue, this court may presume that the jury

followed the court’s instructions. See United States v. Almanzar, 643 F.3d 1214, 1222

(11th Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1352 (11th Cir. 2005)).

Additionally, the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict was overwhelming.

The defendant has exhibited animosity toward black people for years. His ex-

girlfriend, Gabriella Bolt, testified at trial that from 2017-2019, the defendant regularly

referred to black people unknown to him as “niggers,” and, at times, stated that he

wanted to fight or kill them. Doc. 84 at 150-152, 57-58. Even the defendant’s own

mother, Kristin Nuzum, was aware of his racial animus. In an interview, she explained
4
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 5 of 10 PageID 923

to investigators that her son referred to black people as “niggers” in her presence. PSR

at ¶ 42.

On the night of August 8, 2021, defendant acted in accord with his racial animus

when he tailgated, swerved at, and collided with J.T.’s vehicle, all while shouting

“nigger” at J.T. and his family. Doc. 84 at 39-47. After being arrested by law

enforcement, and while waiting to be transported in the back of a patrol vehicle, the

defendant was asked about the incident. He responded, “I just remember throwing up

the Nazi salute and trying to pick a fight with some random-ass fucking colored people,

bro, that’s all I remember.” Here, the defendant plainly sums up his motives. Just as

the jury found and the evidence at trial established, the defendant intentionally selected

J.T. because he was black.

III. Argument in Support of a Guideline Sentence

The Supreme Court has declared, “[a]s a matter of administration and to secure

nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial

benchmark.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 41 (2007). Although this Court may not

presume that a guideline-range sentence is reasonable, the Sentencing Guidelines

remain a significant and pivotal component of the sentencing process. United States v.

Delva, 922 F.3d 1228, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019); United States v. Hunt, 526 F.3d 739, 746

(11th Cir. 2008) (“[W]hile we do not presume that a sentence falling within the

guidelines range is reasonable, we ordinarily expect it to be so.”). This Court,

therefore, “must first calculate the Guidelines range, and then consider what sentence

is appropriate for the individual defendant in light of the statutory sentencing factors,
5
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 10 PageID 924

18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), explaining any variance from the former with reference to the

latter.” Nelson v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 890, 891–92 (2009).

Section 3553(a)(1) provides that, in determining a sentence, courts must

consider the nature and circumstances of the offense, as well as the history and

characteristics of the defendant. Additional factors outlined in section 3553(a)(2)

include the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote

respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate

deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from further crimes of the

defendant, and to provide the defendant with needed education or vocational training,

medical care, or other corrective treatment in the most effective manner.

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

On the evening of August 8, 2021, the defendant attacked and threatened a

family traveling home from dinner in Seminole, Florida. See PSR. As the family—J.T.,

his girlfriend (B.P.M.), and his four-year-old daughter—drove southbound in J.T.’s

car on Starkey Road, the defendant pulled alongside J.T.’s car in his own vehicle. Id.

at ¶ 7. The defendant made gun gestures with his hands, pretending to shoot at J.T.’s

vehicle. Id. While making the gestures, the defendant yelled racial slurs at J.T., and

then swerved into J.T.’s lane. Id. When J.T. tried to escape by driving away, the

defendant aggressively tailgated J.T., then pulled alongside J.T. again and swerved

aggressively into J.T.’s lane, forcing J.T. to swerve into a turn lane. Id. As he did so,

the defendant’s car sideswiped J.T.’s car. Id. This conduct is apparently not aberrant,

as in 2018, the defendant told his physician that he drove on the wrong side of the road
6
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 10 PageID 925

in an attempt to run others off of the road. Id. at ¶ 62.

After being arrested in the instant case on August 8, 2021, the defendant made

a series of violent and disturbing comments. For example, he asked a law-enforcement

officer, “[d]o you know how bad I want to kill people,” and graphically described his

desire to commit a mass shooting and then kill himself. Id. at ¶ 12. The defendant

followed up by stating, “[d]o you know how fucking amazing that would feel? That

would feel so much more fulfilling than anything in this life at all.” Id.

B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

The defendant’s criminal history reflects both threats and acts of violence. In

April 2018, he was arrested and charged with battery. PSR at ¶ 31. The arrest stemmed

from the defendant’s unprovoked punching of a victim in the face. Id. He ultimately

pleaded nolo contendere and the court withheld adjudication. Id.

Two years later, in May 2020, the defendant was convicted of two counts of

aggravated stalking and sentenced to 21 months in prison. Id. at ¶ 33. Those charges

related to graphic threats the defendant made to, and about, his ex-girlfriend Gabriella

Bolt. Id. Specifically, over the span of several weeks, the defendant said that he wanted

to kill Ms. Bolt, stomp and pummel her, rip her hair out, crush her skull, smash her

face in, make her unrecognizable, and put her in a coma. He even sent her of pictures

of child-victims from school shootings. Id. The defendant made clear that his words

were sincere by stating, “[t]rust me I don’t make empty threats,” as well as showing

up uninvited (and unwelcomed) at Ms. Bolt’s home and work place. Id. at ¶¶ 33, 36.

7
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 8 of 10 PageID 926

The defendant not only threatened to exact revenge on Ms. Bolt by hurting or

killing her, but also by perpetrating a mass shooting. At one point he stated to her,

“why do you think people go on fucking shooting sprees? It’s mean to be cruel to weird

people like me and I will get my revenge. God, it’s gonna feel amazing.” Id. at ¶ 33.

C. Protect the Public from Further Crimes of the Defendant

Over the years, the defendant has displayed an increasing propensity to commit

acts of violence. The defendant self-reported having been involuntarily committed

approximately 100 times since the age of 16, and as recently as April 2022. See PSR at

¶ 54. A selection of records from these commitments tell a troubling story. See id. at ¶¶

53-64. The defendant has studied active shooter incidents, sympathizes with and

idolizes mass shooters, has stated his desire to become a “mass murderer,” and stated

that he would hurt others if he had a gun. Id. All of this behavior is consistent with his

threatening Ms. Bolt with committing a mass shooting and telling law-enforcement in

the instant case of his desire to commit a mass shooting.

The defendant’s probation officer described the defendant as “angry all the

time,” and believed that characteristic was getting worse as the defendant grew older.

Id. at ¶ 61. The defendant’s mother, Kristine Nuzum, also told investigators that she

was worried the defendant would do something if he did not receive the requisite

mental health treatment. Id. at ¶ 42. Even as the defendant has awaited trial in the

instant case, he has continued to rack up disciplinary infractions and display

concerning behavior. For example, on March 7, 2022, the defendant told a Pinellas

County Jail Employee, “[y]ou don’t know me, you don’t know what I’m capable of.”
8
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 10 PageID 927

Id. at ¶ 56. That much is true; we don’t yet know what the defendant is capable of. A

high-end sentence, however, would serve to protect the public from further crimes of

the defendant.

IV. Conclusion

Based on Leahy’s history and characteristics, considered in conjunction with

the nature and circumstances of the offense and the need to protect the public from

further crimes, the United States respectfully requests a high-end guideline-sentence.

Respectfully submitted,

ROGER B. HANDBERG KRISTEN CLARKE

United States Attorney Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Carlton C. Gammons /s/ David N. Reese

CARLTON C. GAMMONS DAVID N. REESE
Assistant United States Attorney Trial Attorney
Florida Bar Number 85903 Alabama Bar Number ASB-0887-I67R
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200 950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 4CON 7.1132
Tampa, Florida 33602-4798 Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (813) 274-6000 Telephone: (202) 598-5129
Facsimile: (813) 274-6358 Facsimile: (202) 514-8336
Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected]

/s/ Laura-Kate Bernstein

LAURA-KATE BERNSTEIN
Trial Attorney
Maryland Bar Number 1212110224
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, 4CON 7.109
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: (202) 598-3519
Facsimile: (202) 514-8336
Email: [email protected]

9
Case 8:22-cr-00156-KKM-MRM Document 100 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 10 PageID 928

U.S. v. Leahy Case No. 8:22-cr-156-KKM-CPT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 4, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of

electronic filing to counsel of record.

/s/ Carlton C. Gammons

Carlton C. Gammons
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar Number 85903
400 N. Tampa Street, Suite 3200
Tampa, Florida 33602-4798
Telephone: (813) 274-6000
Facsimile: (813) 274-6358
E-mail: [email protected]

10