Would you like to know if your prison consultant is a prison rat? I sure would which is why after posting an article about a prison consultant being a prison rat, I decided to look into other prison consultants to see if they have bad paperwork as well. Turns out the last guy I wrote about isn't the only and likely far from the last prison consultant with a snitch card. Justin Paperny of White Collar Advice (https://www.whitecollaradvice.com/) and Prison Professors (https://prisonprofessors.com/justin-paperny/) also has a snitch card on his docket sheet.
When I searched Google for "prison consultant" I quickly discovered an article by The New York Times about the prison consulting industry. The featured image is a photo of Justin Paperny (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/07/magazine/prison-consultants-fixers.html). I decided to check the docket sheet from United States vs. Justin Paperny (https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5710785/united-states-v-paperny/) for any evidence of cooperation with the government. Document 44 titled "SEALED DOCUMENT - Government's POSITION PAPER; MOTION Pursuant to USSG 5K1.1. (ad) (Entered: 04/03/2008)" should contain a full copy of Paperny's snitch card. Unfortunately, the document is sealed so even if you order a copy on PACER all you get is a single page calling it a sealed document. While I'm not sure exactly why it was sealed, I wouldn't be surprised if burying evidence of Paperny cooperating with the government has something to do with it. If that was the case, the prosecutor messed up by titling the filing in a way that gives it away as a snitch card. Motions filed under USSG 5K1.1 can only be made by the government and require a statement "that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person" (https://guidelines.ussc.gov/gl/%C2%A75K1.1).
The exact nature of Paperny's assistance to the government remains unknown, but his plea offers some insight (see PDF link above map). Paragraph 16 states, "Defendant further agrees to cooperate fully with the USAO, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and, as directed by the USAO, with any other federal, state, or local or foreign law enforcement or regulatory agency." Such cooperation required Paperny to "Respond truthfully and completely to all questions that may be put to defendant, whether in interviews, before a
grand jury, or at any trial or other court proceeding." The government agreed to file a motion for downward departure if Paperny fulfilled his obligations under Paragraph 16.
Paperny's judgement and commitment order says he received just an 18 month sentence. That sentence is consistent with the bottom end of the guideline range for a defendant with a criminal history category of I and a total offense level of 15 (https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/guidelines-manual/2016/Sentencing_Table.pdf). His plea agreement listed his total offense level as 25 but left open the option for the government to seek a downward departure should Paperny make good on his agreement to cooperate. The recommended sentencing range for someone with a base offense level of 25 and a criminal history category of I is 57-71 months. Paperny could not have gotten just 18 months without a downward departure in addition to those used to calculate the guidelines in his plea agreement unless the judge decided to depart for some reason other than the government requesting one. The sentencing transcript is not available.
If somebody agrees to cooperate with law enforcement in their plea agreement, has an entry on their docket sheet from a downward departure motion filed by the government, and receives a sentence significantly lower than their applicable guideline range then they're a rat. People can explain lower sentences as being the result of countless things other than snitching, but not when the lower sentence is accompanied by an agreement to cooperate followed by a motion by the government which requires a statement saying substantial assistance was provided. If Mr. Paperny disagrees with my conclusion he is welcome to send me an unredacted copy of either the government's motion for a downward departure under 5K1.1 or his presentence report.