2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 1 of 11

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
COLUMBIA DIVISION

)
United States olAmerica )
) Case No. 2124-231
)
)
Angel Cooper Vause )
)

GOVERNMT]N'I''S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM AND MEMORANDUM IN

SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR UPWARD VARIANCE

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

Attomeys, submits this memorandum in advance of Angel Vause's sentencing and in support of

an upward variance from the advisory sentencing guidelines. The govemment recommends that

this Court impose on Vause the maximum sentence allowed, incarceration for twenty-four years.

This requires running consecutively the statutory maximum sentence for each of the counts to

which she had pled guilty - an extraordinary recommendation. But these are extraordinary

circumstances.

I. BACKGROUND'
In March 2024, Vause was charged in a three-count indictment. ECF No. 2. All the counts

alleged that Vause had made material misrepresentations and false statements during the

investigation into the kidnapping, assault, and murder ofBrittanee Drexel, in violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section l00l . Vause pled guilty to all three counts on September 9, 2024.

rTheGovemment agrees with the factual summary contained in the PSR. Therefore, this
memorandum highlights only the most relevant facts and key information pertaining to the case.

I
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 2 of 11

a. Abduction of Brittanee Drexel

Toward the end of April 2009, Brittanee Drexel, a l7-year-old high school student,
accompanied several friends from upstate New York to Myrtle Beach. See Exhibit A, Brittanee

Drexel Missing Poster. Drexel had gone to Myrtle Beach for spring break.2 The group stayed in

two different hotels on Ocean Boulevard, the Bluewater Resort and Bar Harbor. Drexel stayed at

Bar Harbor. The Bluewater Resort was south of Bar Harbor. The hotels were almost two miles

apart.

On Saturday, April 25th, Drexel walked from Bar Harbor to the Bluewater. She arrived at

approximately 8:30 p.m. Drexel was wearing shorts and a shirt she had borrowed from another

female in the group, Jen Oberer. Oberer sent Drexel a text message that she wanted them back.

See Exhibit B, Drexel Text Messages. Drexel left the Bluewater eighteen minutes later. at 8:48

p.m., in a hurry to retum them. See Exhibits D & E, Hotel Surveillance of Drexel entering and

exiting the Bluewater. Drexel was texting her boyfriend, John Grieco, expressing her agitation

with the situation. See Exhibit B, Drexel Text Messages.

Unbeknownst to Drexel, Angel Vause and Ray Moody "were hunting" that night for a girl

to abduct and rape. PSR at !f 30; See Exhibit F, Ford Explorer; Exhibit O, Moody 302. Vause and

Moody were in a relationship. Vause, knowing Moody's past proclivity for rape and violence,

texted Moody earlier that week about "grabbing a girl." Moody is a known sex offender, most

notoriously convicted ofraping and beating an eight-year-old girl in Califomia. For tha1, he served

approximately twenty-one years in prison in califomia, from 1983 to 2004. As part of that l9g3

plea, Moody admitted to stalking, abducting, and raping seven other females from l98l-1983, all

'Brittanee's mother was under the beliel Brittanee was at a nearby lake and did not know she
had traveled to Myrtle Beach until after she disappeared.

2
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 3 of 11

'1983
of whom were minors or teenagers. See Exhibit K, State Probation Reformation of Moody's

Prior Sexual Offenses. Sometime after he was released, Moody moved back to South Carolina,

where he eventually met Vause.

When Vause and Moody saw Drexel, they decided to approach her because she was

"pretty" and "alone." In accordance with their plan, Vause approached Drexel, pretended to be a

tourist, and lured Drexel into the vehicle by promising her a ride to her hotel. PSR at fl 3l ; see

Exhibit O (for location, see Exhibit G, Cell Phone Tower Data (Myrtle Beach)). Drexel, desperate

to get back, acquiesced.

Vause later told agents that Drexel had willingly joined them to do drugs and party. This

was a lie.

Shortly afterwards, Moody and Vause took a quick detour, stopping the vehicle to switch

drivers. With Vause at the wheel, Moody tried to open the back door of the Ford Explorer they

were in. It was locked. Moody then entered through the front passenger door and dove over the

seats, immediately restraining Drexel. PSR at Jl 32. Moody told Drexel that she was being

kidnapped and held for ransom. Vause drove the three from Myrtle Beach to the Pole Yard Boat

Landing, just south of Georgetown. PSR atl33; see Exhibits H, Cell Phone Tower Data (Route)

and O. On arrival, Vause left Moody with Drexel for approximately ninety minutes, parking just

south ofthe North Santee River. See Exhibit I, Cell Phone Tower Data (Pole Yard). Drexel's phone

was in her purse, which was sitting on the back seat ofthe Explorer. Drexel had no means ofcalling

for help.

Vause later told agents she left the Pole Yard to get a set of keys from her son. PSR at fl

33. This was a lie. She and Moody both told agents that Drexel had called friends while Vause was

away. The friends supposedly drove to the Pole Yard and picked Drexel up. This was also a lie.

-)
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 4 of 11

When Vause retumed, Moody left for approximately forty minutes, retuming to the Sunsel

Lodge to shower and retrieve "a briefcase containing sex toys." PSR at fl 35; see Exhibit O.

Critically, Vause was alone with Drexel the entire time and had the opportunity to set her free.

Instead, as outlined in the PSR, Drexel soon thereafter was assaulted, raped, and killed

inside a tent previously set up by Moody. PSR at fl 33-43. She was raped and sodomized by Moody

while Vause watched. PSR at fl 36. She was then handcuffed and strangled to death with a rope,

also in the presence ofVause. Id Moody then drove an ice pick through Drexel's heart to confirm

she was dead. 1d To be sure she was no longer breathing, Moody carried Drexel to the river, where

he left her face down at the edge ofthe water for ten minutes or so. She never stirred . See generally

Exhibit O.

Later, with Vause's assistance, Moody would move Drexel's body out of the Pole Yard to

dispose of it. Afterwards, Moody buried Drexel in a shallow grave, where she would remain until

2022. PSR at fl 40.

b. Vause's cover u ofher role into Drexel's dis carance

The investigation into Drexel's disappearance lasted well over a decade and involved state,

local, and federal law enforcement agencies. On May 'll, 2022, the FBI interviewed Vause

regarding Drexel's disappearance. Vause made at least three misrepresentations: (1) Vause leli

Drexel and Moody at the Pole Yard and traveled north toward Georgetown to meet her son to

retrieve keys to the Sunset Lodge, where she and Moody had a room; (2) Drexet maintained

possession ofher phone throughout that night; and (3) Drexel willingly joined Vause and Moody

while walking along Ocean Boulevard to go consume drugs. All of these statements were false.

Because Vause and Moody's versions were consistent, closure of Moody's case was premised in

part on misleading information.

-+
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 5 of 11

On October 19,2022, Moody pled guilty to raping Drexel before killing her. See Exhibit

J, Moody Convictions. Specifically, he plead to "Criminal sexual conduct -first degree," in

violation of S.C. Code 16-03-0652.3 Title 18, United States Code, Section 1001(a) increases the

maximum statutory penalty from five to eight years "if the matter relates to an offense lmder

Chapter 1094, 1098, 110, or 117, or section 1591..." or involves intemational or domestic

terrorism.

Vause's false statements to FBI regarding Drexel's rape implicates several federal statutes

from Chapter 117:

r Title 18, United States Code, Section 2421 (Mann Act - Transportation for Criminal

Sexual Acts);

o Title 1 8, United States Code, Section 2422 (Coercion and Enticement of a Minor); and

o Title 18, United States Code, Section 2423 (Transportation of Minors for Unlawful

Sexual Activity).

As such, Vause is subjected to the enhanced penalties of Title 18, United States Code, Section

1001(a)(3).

i A person is guilty of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree if the actor engages in sexual
battery with the victim and if any one or more olthe following circumstances are proven:

(a) The actor uses aggravated lbrce to accomplish sexual battery.

(b) The victim submits to sexual battery by the actor under circumstances where the victim
is also the victim offorcible confinement, kidnapping, trafficking in persons, robbery.
extofiion, burglary, housebreaking, or any other similar offense or act.
(c) The actor causes the victim, without the victim's consent, to become mentally
incapacitated or physically helpless by administering, distributing, dispensing,
delivering, or causing to be administered, distributed, dispensed. or delivered a
controlled substance, a controlled substance analogue, or any intoxicating substance.

)
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 6 of 11

On September 9,2024, Vause pled guilty to all three counts of the Indictment. Vause

agreed to the Govemment's factual recitation that "Drexel was assaulted, raped, and killed."

Exhibit N, Change of Plea Transcript at 18:.22-23.

According to the presentence report (PSR), the base offense level for Vause is 14. PSR at

fl 67. Four levels were added because Vause's crimes relate to a sex offense. Id at fl 68. The USPO

added another two levels pursuant to U.S.S.G. $ 2J1.2(bX2), because Vause's conduct resulted in

a substantial interference with the administration ofjustice. Id. atJl 68. Lastly, Vause obstructed

justice, resulting in an additional two points pursuant to U.S.S.G. $ 2J1.2(bX3). The resulting total

offense level is 30, which results in a guideline range of70 to 87 months. However, as described

below, a guideline sentence falls short of achieving the purposes of sentencing.

II. SENTENCING TACTORS WARRANT AN UPWARI)

18 U.S.C $ 3553(a)
VARIANCE OUTSIDE OF THE GUIDELINES RANGE

The USPO properly calculated the guideline range of 70 to 87 months. However, that

range does not capture the extent of Vause's conduct. Therefore. the government moves for a

variance based on the factors enumerated in 18 U.S.C. $ 3553 and recommends a sentence of

incarceration of twenty-four years.

The sentencing statute, l8 U.S.C. $ 3553(a), requires the Court to impose a sentence that

is "sufEcient, but not greater than necessary," to comply with the purposes of sentencing.a

According to the revised sentencing scheme promulgated by and in the wake of the Supreme

Court's decision ir United States v. Booker,543 U.S. 220 (2005), the district court must first

a
Those purposes are the need for the sentence "(A) to reflect the seriousness of the off'ense, to
promote respect for the law, and to providejust punishment for the offense; (B) to aflbrd adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct; (C) to protect the public from further crimes ofthe defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other
correctional treatment in the most effective manner." $ 3553(aX2XA)-(D).

6
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 7 of 11

calculate the advisory Guidelines range and then consider the factors set forth in $3553(a). ln

making this determination, this Court should consider whether a traditional departure is

necessary or appropriate to achieve the statutory purpose of sentencing and./or whether a variant

sentence is necessary to achieve the statutory purposes of sentencing. See generally United

States v. Diosdao-Star,630 F. 3d 359 (4th Cir. 2011).

A sentencing court may impose a sentence above the guideline range by granting either

an upward departure or an upward variance. As the Fourth Circuit has explained, a departure is

"a term of art under the Guidelines and refers only to non-Guidelines sentences-i.e., sentences

outside the properly calculated Guidelines range-imposed for reasons recognized within the

Guidelines' framework." United States v. Williams,5 F.4th 500 at 506 (4th Cir.), cert. denied,

142 S. Ct. 625 (2021),citing lrizarry v. United States, 553 U.S. 708,714 (2008) (cleaned up).

"A variance, on the other hand, denotes a non-Guidelines sentence that is justified not by

considerations in the Guidelines but by the sentencing factors set forth in l8 U.S.C. $ 3553(a)."

Id. citing United States v. Rivera-Santana, 668 F.3d 95, 100 n.6 (4th Cir. 2012). A sentencing

court is not required to provide a party notice, under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(h) or otherwise, prior

to imposing an upward variance. l{illiams,5 F.4th 500 at 507.

a The nature an d circ unrstan ces ofthe oflf-ense and the historv and
characteristics of the defendant.

Vause's conduct was heinous. She exploited Drexel's naivete when she lured her into the

Explorer. No teenage girl would get into a car with an unfamiliar middle-aged man without the

assurance that she is safe. Without Vause, Drexel would not have accepted the offer ofa ride, and

all that followed would never have happened.

7
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 8 of 11

According to Moody, it was Vause's idea to "go hunting" for a young girl the weekend of

Drexel's disappearance. See Exhibit O. Vause knew of Moody's criminal past, and she knew that

Moody continued to fantasize about raping a petite female. Vause personally executed the ruse

that made Moody's fantasy come true.

Under no logical scenario would Vause and Moody abduct Drexel, spend almost four hours

with her, sexually assault her, and then drop her back off on Ocean Boulevard. Had she remained

alive, their anests would have been a certainty. Drexel's murder was easily foreseeable - almost

guaranteed.

Additionally, during the four or so hours between the time Drexel was abducted until she

was murdered, Vause continually made decisions to not only allow the rape and murder to occur,

but actively took steps to enable the crimes. After that evening, she repeatedly lied to law

enforcement to conceal the extent of her role in the kidnapping, delaying the apprehension of

Moody and the recovery of Drexel's body. For that, Vause deserves to spend the balance of her

adult life in prison.

The Govemment sees no sense in overly dramatizing the escalating fear Drexel must have

felt as she realized, first, that she had been abducted and transported to a desolate location; second,

that she would be raped; and third, that she would be killed. No seventeen-year-old is equipped to

deal with such calamitous circumstances, and to dwell on the moment-to-moment sequence is to

Iose oneself in a nightmare.

What can get overlooked - despite her unceasing advocacy for her daughter - is the

catastrophic instant Dawn Conley, Drexel's mother, learned that her daughter was not at a nearby

Iake but instead had traveled to Myrtle Beach and disappeared. As with Brittanee, Dawn was

slowly immersed into a tortuous ordeal: first, when she leamed Brittanee was missing, second,

8
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 9 of 11

when she accepted that Brittanee was gone, and finally, when she was subjected to the uncertainty

and frustration of the thirteen years it took to locate Brittanee's body and to bring one ofthe two

primary perpetrators, Raymond Moody, to justice.

On the date of her abduction, Drexel was seventeen years old. She was an avid soccer

player who loved spending time with her friends. She was looking forward to going to the prom

with her boyfriend. Vause's actions robbed of her of that tife and everything that would have

followed. Drexel was never given the opportunity to finish school, get married, become a mother,

or experience any ofthe otherjoys adulthood brings.

Much of the pain described above falls at the feet of Angel Vause. Vause was the reason

Drexel accepted the proffered ride. Vause abandoned Drexel with a known serial rapist. Vause

took Drexel's phone, her only means of reaching help, while she was gone for ninety minutes.

Vause was alone with Drexel for approximately forty minutes while Moody was at the Sunset

Lodge. Throughout, Vause kept Drexel detained, despite knowing Moody's plans for her.

At best, Vause sat by and watched as Moody raped and murdered Drexel. Vause deceived

police with the far-fetched explanation that Drexel was picked up by friends that night, despite

Vause having Drexel's phone in her possession the entire time.

Drexel's disappearance made local, state, and national news in 2009. Vause knew she and

Moody were responsible. She knew Drexel's family, and an entire community. were searching for

Drexel. And she kept the events of April 25, 2009, to herself for thirteen years. Nowhere in the

four-hour period of the abduction and murder, or during the now fifteen years since, did her

conscience intervene.

Vause's lack of remorse isjarring. In April 2020. eleven years after Drexel's death, Vause

posted an image on Facebook that read, "Bitch I will put you in a trunk and help people lookfor

9
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 10 of 11

you stop ploying with me." See Exhibit L, Vause Facebook Post. If she were burdened by her

actions, she would never have alluded to such a scenario.

b. The need lbr the sentence rmpo sed to reflect the seriousness of the offense. to
promote rcspcct fbr the lar.l'. and to prov ide iust punishment fbr the oft-ense. to
alford adeq uate deterrence to criminal conduct. and to orotect the oublic fiom
further crimes of the del'endant

Vause was an accomplice in the abduction, rape, and murder ofa teen-aged girl by a known

sex offender with brutal tendencies. It is hard to imagine a more serious offense than the one Vause

initiated, aided in, and later covered up. The enhanced penalties provided by l8 U.S.C. $1001,

when stacked, come close to the goal ofjust punishment, particularly considering that Vause is 57

years old. A guideline sentence would fall short ofreflecting the full severity ofher conduct.

Only the most callous ofhumans is capable ofthe behavior demonstrated by Vause. To the

extent others would consider engaging in conduct like Vause's, a sentence of twenty-four years

would certainly deter. A sentence at the Govemment's recommendation would convey that such

conduct - including the cover up - will not be tolerated.

If the Court follows the Govemment's recommendation, Vause will remain incarcerated

until she is 81 years old. Ifshe receives good-time credit, she still will not be eligible for release

until she is 76 years old. She will not be interacting with the public for a generation.

d. The Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sente nce Disoarities Amons Defendants with
S imilar Records Who Have Been Found Guiltv of Similar Conduct - $3553(aX6)

The Fourth Circuit has upheld variances and the eight-year statutory maximum in cases

involving aberrant behavior comparable to that of Y ause. United Stqtes v. Al Qatamin, 816

Fed.Appx. 814 (4th Cir. 2020) (twelveJevel enhancement and statutory maximum sentence upheld

in case involving defendant concealed from the FBI that he provided intelligence to individuals he

believed to be ISIS fighters) (unpublished opinion); United States v. Blake,565 Fed.Appx. 241

l0
 2:24-cr-00234-RMG Date Filed 01/17/25 Entry Number 59 Page 11 of 11

(4th Cir. 2014) (upholding district court's upward variance to 240 months based primarily on the

gruesome nature of the murder underlying defendanl's conspiracy charge); see also United States

v. Small,988 F.3d 241 (6th Cir.202l) (upholding near 100-month upward variance in conviction

for kidnapping and conspiracy to commit kidnapping).

Imposing a sentence oftwenty-four years would be sufficient but not greater than necessary

to achieve the objectives ofthe $ 3553(a) factors. Further, it is reasonable in light ofFourth Circuit

precedent and would not create sentencing disparities among those few defendants similarly

situated 10 Vause.

III. Conclusion

Vause has earned a twenty-four-year sentence. All that occuned was foreseeable; all that

happened afterwards was unforgiveable. Her actions - as egregious as one can imagine - merit

this punishment.

v bmi

F'. B ROU
DS TES RNEY

By,
WINSTON D. II IDAY. JR. (#75
ELLE E. KLErN (#12941) ("
Assistant United States Attomeys
l44l Main St.. Ste. 500
Columbia. SC 29201
(803) 929-307e
Winston.holliday@usdoj. gov
Attorneys./br the United States of America

January '17 ,2025

ll