Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 1 of 21 PageID #: 1653
FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROBERT JAYNES, JR.
\
Defendant.
MAR 2 9 2016
EA~~RDISTRICT COURT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
~f.'EJmgroF MO
No. 4:14 CR00152 RWS
GUILTY PLEA AGREEMENT
Come now the parties and hereby agree, as follows:
1.
THE PARTIES:
The parties to the agreements, recommendations and stipulations contained herein are the
defendant ROBERT JAYNES, JR., defense counsel NANCI MCCARTHY, and the Office of the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri (hereinafter "the government"). This
I
document and the agreements, recommendations and stipulations contained herein do not, and
are not intended to, bind any governmental office or agency other than the United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. It is understood by the parties that the Court is
neither a party to nor bound by these agreements, recommendations and stipulations.
2.
GUILTY PLEA:
Pursuant to Rule 1 l(c)(l)(C), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in exchange for the
defendant's voluntary plea of guilty to Counts ONE and TWO of the indictment, the g?vernment
further agrees that no further federal prosecution will be brought in this District relative to: (1)
the defendant's paiticipation in a conspiracy to distribute and to possess with the intent to
distribute Schedule I controlled substances and Schedule I controlled substance analogues
intended for human consumption and (2) the defendant's participation in a conspiracy to
introduce misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, all events occurring between 2011 and the
1
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 2 of 21 PageID #: 1654
date of the indictment, of which the Government is aware at this time.
The parties also agree to a cap of one hundred and fifty (150) months incarceration and
forfeiture of all items set forth in the indictment and bill of particulars filed in this matter, with
the remaining sentencing factors such as supervised release to be left to the discretion of the
Court. As further set forth, this agreement constitutes a substantial downward variance from the
anticipated advisory sentencing range and is undertaken by the parties to reach a just sentence
which balances aggravating and mitigating factors within the context of a first impression
prosecution in this District.
The parties also agree that the U. S. Sentencing Guidelines Total Offense Level analysis
agreed to by the parties herein is the result of negotiation and led, in part, to the guilty plea. The
parties further agree that the defendant may request a sentence below the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines range (combination of Total Offense Level and Criminal History Category)
ultimately determined by the Court, with a cap of one hundred and fifty (150) months, pursuant
to any chapter of the Guidelines and Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). The parties
further agree that notice of any such request will be given no later than ten days prior to
sentencing and that said notice shall specify the legal and factual bases for the request.
With respect to the Criminal Forfeiture allegation, the defendant agrees to forfeit to the
United States what, if any, interest he has in the following property in that such sum in the
aggregate is property constituting, or derived from any proceeds the defendant obtained directly
or indirectly as a result of the Conspiracy to Distribute Schedule I Controlled Substances and
Schedule I Controlled Substance Analogues and the Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
or property intended to facilitate the commission of such offenses. The property specifically
subject to forfeiture includes, but is not limited to:
2
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 3 of 21 PageID #: 1655
a.
$16,115.00 U.S. currency;
b.
All monies, funds, and financial instruments deposited or credited to First
National Bank, account ending in 3890, in the name of BRETT and
SHERRI BEEMAN; and
c.
$11,213.00 U.S. currency seized from MARCIA GRONEK on April 22,
2013,
d.
$14,430.00 U.S. cmrency;
e.
792.8 lbs. of silver colored coins and pieces; and
f.
27 .60 pounds of silver colored bars.
Pursuant to United States Sentencing Guideline 2Dl.1, Application Note 6, the parties
agree that the base offense level for JWH018, JWH122, JWH250, AM2201, a-PVP, AKB48,
APINACA, XLRl 1, 5flouroUR144, A796260, and MAM2201 will be determined using the
marijuana equivalency of the most closely related controlled substances. In this case, the parties
agree that:
Synthetic Controlled Substances/Analogues:
a.
JWH018, JWH122, JWH250, AM2201, AKB48, APINACA, XLRl 1,
5flouroUR144, A796260 and MAM2201 are not referenced in the
guidelines. U.S.S.G. 2Dl.1, App. Note 6 (Analogues and Controlled
Substances Not Referenced in this Guideline);
b.
JWH018, JWH122, JWH250, AM2201, AKB48, APINACA, XLRl 1,
5flouroUR144, A796260 and MAM2201 have a pharmacological effect
on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to the
phannacological effect on the central nervous system as
Tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC"), either organic or synthetic. U.S.S.G.
2Dl.l, App. Note 6(B);
c.
JWH018, JWH122, JWH250, AM2201, AKB48, APINACA, XLRl 1,
5flouroUR144, A796260 and MAM2201 are most closely related to THC,
referenced in the guidelines U.S.S.G. 2Dl.1, App. Note 6(C); and
3
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 4 of 21 PageID #: 1656
d.
1 gram of THC is equal to 167 grams of marijuana. U.S.S.G. 2Dl.1 (Drug
Equivalency Tables);
3.
ELEMENTS:
As to Count ONE, the defendant admits to knowingly violating Title 21, United States
Code Sections 841(a)(l), 813 and 846 and admits there is a factual basis for the plea and further
fully understands that the elements of the crime are:
(1) during the time alleged in the indictment, two or more persons reached an agreement or came
to an understanding to distribute substances containing detectable amounts of synthetic
cannabinoids, including JWH018, JWH122, JWH250, AM2201, a-PVP, AKB48, APINACA,
XLRl 1, 5tlouroUR144, A796260, and MAM2201 all of which at the time were either Schedule I
controlled substances or Schedule I controlled substance analogues;
(2) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally j_oined in the agreement or understanding,
either at the time it was first reached or at some time while it was still in effect; and
(3) at the time the defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he knew the purpose of
the agreement or understanding; and
(4) that the Scheduled I controlled substance analogues being distributed during the course of the
conspiracy were intended for human consumption.
As to Count TWO, the defendant admits to knowingly violating Title 21, United States
Code Sections 331(a), 331(c), 331(k) and 333(a)(2), and Title 18, United States Code 371, and
admits there is a factual basis for the plea and further fully understands that the elements of the
cnme are:
(1) during the time alleged in the indictment, two or more persons reached an agreement or
came to an understanding to introduce misbranded drugs into interstate commerce;
(2) that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally joined in the agreement or understanding,
either at the time it was first reached or at some time while it was still in effect;
(3) at the time the defendant joined in the agreement or understanding, he knew the purpose of
the agreement or understanding; and
4
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 5 of 21 PageID #: 1657
(4) while the agreement was in effect, a person or persons who had joined the agreement
knowingly did one or more acts for the purpose of carrying forward the agreement.
4.
FACTS:
The parties agree that the facts in this case are as follows and that the government would
prove these facts beyond a reasonable doubt if the case were to go to trial. These facts may be
considered as relevant conduct pursuant to Section 1B1.3:
During the time period alleged in the Indictment, in the Eastern District of Missouri, and
elsewhere, defendant Robert JAYNES, JR. (hereinafter "JAYNES") and co-defendant Kirk
Parsons (hereinafter "PARSONS") d/b/a as Tight Thirty Entertainment, Inc. (hereinafter
"TTE") and d/b/a West Strong Wholesale, Inc. (hereinafter "WSW") in Indianapolis, Indiana,
along with their co-defendants and others indicted in Case Numbers 4:14CR00175AGF and
4: 14CROO 150.TAR, entered into an agreement or understanding to commit a number of federal
offenses: 1) to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute Schedule I controlled
substances and Schedule I controlled substance analogues intended for human consumption; 2)
to defraud and mislead, and to introduce misbranded drugs into interstate commerce and 3) to
knowingly engaged in monetary transactions by through or to a financial institution, affecting
interstate commerce knowing the monetary transactions involved proceeds from the distribution
and sale of Schedule I controlled substances and Schedule I controlled substance analogues
intended for human consumption in an amount that had a value greater than $10,000.00.
Summary of Evidence
The evidence would prove beyond a reasonable doubt and the pru1ies agree that in recent
years, individuals began to manufacture and traffic in smokable synthetic cannabinoid products,
many times known on the street as "K2," "Spice," "Incense," "Potpourri" and "Herbal Sachet"
products. Users of these products have reported effects similar to Schedule I controlled
substances, but many times greater, to include but not limited to paranoia, panic attacks,
5
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 6 of 21 PageID #: 1658
increased heart rate and increased blood pressure. Smokable synthetic cannabinoid products are
a mixture of an organic 11 carrier 11 medium, such as the herb-like substance (i.e. Damiana), which
is then typically sprayed or mixed with a synthetic compound chemically similar to Schedule I
controlled substances or controlled substance analogues intended for human consumption.
CuTI"ently, there are hundreds of synthetic cannabinoid compounds.
The defendant admits that in response to the scheduling of the aforementioned
compounds in paragraph 2 herein, and in an attempt to circumvent federal laws, as well as state
laws, individuals including himself and his co-defendants in the instant indictment began
manufacturing and distributing synthetic cannabinoid and cathinone products. These products
had a substantially similar chemical structure and pharmacological effects on the central nervous
system as Schedule I controlled substances. Furthermore, individuals, including defendant
JAYNES and his co-defendants, and others, began labeling the products as "not for human
consumption," in direct response to the Controlled Substance Analogue Enforcement Act's
reference to a controlled substance analogue being intended "for human consumption."
ROBERT JAYNES was aware that individuals were ingesting these products to get high.
Defendant JAYNES further admits that the aforementioned materials/controlled
substances were misbranded, in that they (a) were not labeled with adequate instructions for use;
(b) were falsely and misleadingly labeled to indicate they were not for human consumptions,
although there were so intended; and (c) they were not labeled with information identifying the
substance's active ingredienror intended use.
Moreover, JAYNES admits that he and members of the conspiracy would monitor
various state laws and scheduling orders regulating these substances. In reaction to scheduling
changes, the defendants would purchase synthetic chemicals in which the atomic structure of the
6
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 7 of 21 PageID #: 1659
chemical had been slightly altered in order to manufacture and market synthetic drugs that were
substantially similar in chemical structure and in pharmacological effect as the newly scheduled
synthetic drug.
The evidence will show that in 2012, multiple federal agencies.including,but not limited
to, the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation, ICE Homeland Security Investigations,
Drug Enforcement Administration, and the United States Postal Inspection Service began an
OCDETF investigation concerning co-defendant Greg SLOAN for manufacturing, marketing,
and distributing controlled substances and controlled substance analogues in the Eastern District
of Missouri, the Southern District of Illinois, and elsewhere. The evidence will also show that codefendant JAYNES d/b/a TTE and WSW sold, purchased and distributed synthetic drugs to and
from Greg SLOAN d/b/a NEB Consulting, Inc., NEB Distributing, LLC (hereinafter "NEB"),
and Silver Rocket Distributing, LLC (hereinafter "Silver Rocket") and Doug SLOAN d/b/a
Beautiful Cars of Indiana (hereinafter "BCOI") co-defendants David NEAL d/b/a IDK
Anything, LLC (hereinafter "IDK") and Chuck Wolfe d/b/a Psychedelic Blur, LLC
(hereinafter "Psychedelic Blur").
Co-defendants Greg SLOAN d/b/a NEB and Silver Rocket and Doug SLOAN d/b/a
BCOI, marketed, sold and distributed synthetic drugs through traditional sales, telemarketing
methods, use of the internet website www.silverrocketorders.com, email, and through the use of
the U.S. Postal Service, United Parcel Service and Federal Express.
Moreover, the evidence will also show that co-defendants Doug SLOAN, Greg SLOAN,
Michael LENTSCH and Anwer RAO were unable to keep up with the demand for synthetic
drugs being ordered and utilized by NEB and Silver Rocket, as well as other distributers, which
included JAYNES and PARSONS. Thus, through the efforts and assistance of co-defendant
7
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 8 of 21 PageID #: 1660
Doug SLOAN, co-defendants LENTSCH and RAO enlisted co-conspirator Roger
UPCHURCH (indicted in a Case Number 1:15-CR-00030-RLY in the Southern District of
Indiana) d/b/a Driftwood of Arizona (hereinafter "Driftwood") to meet their supply demands ..
Co-defendant Mansi PATEL ran the Driftwood operation located in Phoenix, Arizona. Codefendant Doug SLOAN and others would e-mail co-defendant PATEL to place orders for the
shipment of synthetic drugs to Doug SLOAN's facilities in Indiana. Also, co-defendant
LENTSCH and RAO would have some of the synthetic chemicals manufactured in China,
shipped to co-defendant PATEL in Arizona for purposes of manufacturing synthetic drugs to
meet their supply demands.
More specifically, on September 12, 2013, United States Customs and Border Protection
(hereinafter "CBP") officers at the John F. Kennedy Port of Entry in New York City conducted a
border inspection of an Express Mail parcel from China addressed to defendant JAYNES, but
listing the residential address of co-defendant Kirk PARSONS on Front Point Drive in
Indianapolis, Indiana. Inside the aforementioned parcel, inspecting officers discovered 3,070
grams ofXLR-11. Further investigation revealed that between May 2013 and August 2013, CBP
had recently seized multiple parcels containing over six (6) kilograms of Schedule I controlled
substances and Schedule I controlled substance analogues sent from China to co-defendant
PARSONS' residential address in Indianapolis. Also, located in CBP shipping records,
additional historic shipments records from China to PARSONS' address revealed that these
shipments were manifested as "printed materials" and "chemical powders."
Following, on September 22, 2013, HSI Special Agent John Goehring intercepted a
parcel addressed to PARSONS' address that was thought to contain suspected synthetic drugs.
Investigators conducted a border search of the parcel and discovered two separate foil wrapped
8
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 9 of 21 PageID #: 1661
packages, each containing clear plastic bags containing an unknown white powdery substance,
suspected to be synthetic drugs which weighed approximately four pounds. Investigators
resealed the parcel and attempted a controlled delivery on October 1, 2013 to PARSONS'
residential address. Ultimately an Indiana state search warrant was executed at PARSONS'
Indianapolis residence and investigators identified and seized multiple items including the parcel
(unopened), three long barrel shotguns, a clear plastic zip lock bag containing and a green leafy
substance suspected to be synthetic drugs and/or look-a-like substances and financial records
related to the following persons and entities: "Kirk PARSONS", "TTE," "Clean and Clear."
Following, on October 1, 2013, investigators went to make contact with defendant
JAYNES' at the Brookeville Road address of his business TTE in Indianapolis, Indiana, where
investigators observed acetone buckets, additional boxes with wrappers, drying racks and fans,
which were items consistent with synthetic drug laboratory materials and precursors. In
addition, there was a strong scent of acetone emitting from the business. While at JAYNES and
PARSONS' business, investigators came into contact with several individuals who agreed to
speak with investigators about their role in the distribution of the controlled substances listed in
paragraph 2 herein. Witness #1 admitted that he and several others worked at the warehouse,
which was JAYNES and PARSONS' place of business TTE. These individuals were paid $100
in cash per day to fill pre-printed bags with two-to-five grams of synthetic drugs, and they filled
5,000 to 10,000 bags per day. Witness #1 also stated that "Kirk" (later identified as co-defendant
PARSONS) brought the synthetic drugs to the location and then they bagged the drugs.
Also, Witness #2 stated that co-defendant PARSONS hired him and he was paid
$1,000.00 per week to fill bags with synthetic drugs and package them for delivery. Witness #2
stated that defendant JAYNES or co-defendant PARSONS brought the finished synthetic drugs
9
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 10 of 21 PageID #: 1662
in 50 pound bags to the warehouse location on Brookville Road. Witness #2 also confirmed that
he and others filled 5,000 to 10,000 individual bags per day, and the individual packages were
boxed and placed by a door for pickup by co-defendant PARSONS to pick up, and Witness #2
performed all of these actions at the direction of JAYNES and PARSONS.
Subsequently, an Indiana state search warrant was executed at the Brookville Road
location and the vehicles on the premises. Upon execution of the search warrant, investigators
discovered a large quantity of finished synthetic drugs and raw materials used in the
manufacturing of synthetic drugs. Some of the items seized, included, but was not limited to:
"Darkness," "Avalon," "Pirates Booty," "Kite," "Zero Gravity;" "Primo Simmering Potpourri,"
"Strawberry Passion Pyara," "Rosewood Pyra," "Indigo Pyra," "Deversion 2.0 Cloud 9," "Cloud
9 Deew Incense," "Ultra," two (2) large white burlap sacks containing plant material
(approximately 600-700 pounds total), numerous cardboard boxes containing plastic bags,
several plastic trash bags containing plastic gloves, packing tape rolls, numerous digital scales
and heat sealers, various financial ledgers and billing statements containing various business
names and containing terminology that refers to types and quantities of synthetic drugs.
The evidence will also show that in October 2013, investigators met with the book keeper
for Robert JAYNES and Kirk PARSONS. The book keeper voluntarily provided investigators
with boxes of financial records and a laptop computer that contained records related to the same .
. Investigators obtained and executed a search warrant on boxes of financial records and laptop
computer provided by the book keeper. Investigators reviewing those records determined that
JAYNES and PARSONS were using the businesses and bank accounts of TTE and WSW to
conceal a large-scale synthetic drug manufacturing and distribution operation. More specifically,
according to the documents and electronic records investigators determined that JAYNES and
10
I•
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 11 of 21 PageID #: 1663
I
PARSONS sold approximately $2,600,000.00 of synthetic drugs named "Darkness," "Pirates
Booty" and "Kite," through WSW. According to those same records JAYNES and PARSONS
sold synthetic drugs named "Darkness," "Pirates Booty," "Kite," totaling approximately
$244,347 to co-defendant David NEAL and $111,700.00 to co-defendant Charles WOLFE.
After the aforementioned search warrant was executed in October 2013, investigators
also spoke with Witness #3 who stated that he/she had attended defendant Robert JAYNES'
Irvington Bible Baptist Church before and had worked at the warehouse located on Brookville
Road. Witness #3 also stated that he/she had received parcels on behalf of both JAYNES and
PARSONS at his/her residence. Witness #3 stated that either co-defendant PARSONS or
Witness #2 would stop by his/her residence and pick up the packages. Witness #3 also stated
that he/she would receive cash from defendant JAYNES and then purchase several cashier's
checks with the money, but never purchased a cashier's check on JAYNES' behalf above
$10,000.00 in order to avoid federal reporting requirements. Witness #3 also stated that he/she
had recently purchased a home in New Palestine, Indiana using $230,000 in cash that was given
to him/her by JAYNES. Witness #3 put the title to the home in his/her name and was instructed
by JAYNES to never deposit over $10,000 at one time to avoid federal reporting requirements.
Additionally, in October 2013, Witness #4 was interviewed and stated that approximately
ten months prior, he/she was asked by defendant JAYNES if he/she would allow JAYNES to
have parcels sent to his/her address. Witness #4 estimated that he/she had received
approximately 25-40 parcels on JAYNES' behalf, and after he/she would accept the parcels,
he/she would call co-defendant PARSONS who would typically pick the packages up the same
day. Afterwards, defendant JAYNES would provide him/her with cash to obtain cashier's
checks for JAYNES made out to Reliable Distributors and the cashier's checks were then
11
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 12 of 21 PageID #: 1664
delivered to the TTE business office. Witness #4 estimated that he/she had obtained cashier's
checks for JAYNES approximately 10-15 times. Also, Witness #4 stated that on two occasions
defendant JAYNES had provided him/her with cash to deposit into his/her bank account and
then he/she wrote checks from his/her personal checking account made payable to Reliable
Distributors.
The amount of Schedule I controlled substances and Schedule I controlled substance
analogues intended for human consumption, in light of the known evidence and seizures,
attributable to defendant Robert JAYNES, JR. is not subject to precise calculation. However,
based upon records, including invoices, as well as other evidence and seizures, the parties have
agreed to hold defendant JAYNES accountable for at least 90,000 kilograms or more of
marijuana which is the equivalent of the amount of controlled substances that are outlined in this
plea agreement. Since the attributable amount far exceeds the threshold amount for the highest
drug quantity guideline, no further attempt was made to quantify the amount of seized material,
as well as all of the other synthetic drugs distributed as part of this enterprise.
5.
STATUTORY PENALTIES:
A.
COUNT ONE: The defendant fully understands that the maximum possible
penalty provided by law for the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty is imprisonment
of not more than twenty (20) years, a fine of not more than $1,000,000, or both such
imprisonment and fine. The Court may also impose a period of supervised release of no less
than three (3) years and no more than life, and a mandatory special assessment of $100.
B.
COUNT TWO: The defendant fully understands that the maximum possible
penalty provided by law for the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty is imprisonment
of not more than five (5) years, a fine of not more than $250,000, or both such imprisonment and
12
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 13 of 21 PageID #: 1665
fine. The Court may also impose a period of supervised release of not more than three (3) years,
and a mandatory special assessment of $100.
6.
U. S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES: 2014 MANUAL:
The defendant understands that this offense is affected by the U. S. Sentencing
Guidelines and the actual sentencing range is determined by both the Total Offense Level and
the Criminal History Category. The parties agree that the following are the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Total Offense Level provisions that apply.
a.
Chapter 2 Offense Conduct:
(1)
i.
Group Base Offense Level:
As to Counts ONE and TWO, these counts are grouped for guideline calculation
purposes as found in USSG §2N2.l(c)(2), as Count TWO was committed in
furtherance of Count ONE which is the offense of Conspiracy to Possess with
Intent to Distribute Schedule I Controlled Substances and Schedule I Controlled
Substance Analogues. Pursuant to the commentary in Section 2D 1.1 (8)(D) under
the equivalency tables, 1 gram of THC equals 167 grams of marijuana. The
parties.recommend that the amount of controlled substance which is the subject of
the underlying offenses is more than 90,000 kilograms of marijuana, resulting in
the recommended base offense level of 38 as found in Section 2D 1.1 (c)(1 ).
(2) Chapter 2 Specific Offense Characteristics: The parties recommend that
the following Specific Offense Characteristics apply:
i.
ii.
2 levels should be added pursuant to 2Dl.1(12) because the defendant maintained
a premises for the purpose of manufacturing or distributing a controlled
substance.
2-levels should be added pursuant to 2Dl.1(15)(E) because the defendant
committed the offense as part of a pattern of criminal conduct engaged in as a
livelihood.
13
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 14 of 21 PageID #: 1666
b.
Chapter 3 Adjustments: The parties recommend that the following Chapter 3
adjustments apply:
L
4-levels added pursuant to 3B1.1 (a) as the defendant was an organizer or leader of
a criminal activity that involved five or more participants.
(1) Acceptance of Responsibility: The parties recommend that three levels
should be deducted pursuant to Section 3El.l(a), because the defendant has clearly demonstrated
acceptance of responsibility and timely notified the, government of the defendant's intention to
plead guilty. The parties agree that the defendant's eligibility for this deduction is based upon
information presently known. If subsequent to the taking of the guilty plea the government
receives new evidence of statements or conduct by the defendant which it believes are
inconsistent with defendant's eligibility for this deduction, the government may present said
evidence to the court, and argue that the defendant should not receive all or part of the deduction
pursuant to Section 3El.l, without violating the plea agreement.
c.
Estimated Total Offense Level: The parties estimate that the Total Offense
Level is 43.
This offense level, regardless of the criminal history, carries a recommended advisory
sentence oflife imprisonment. However, due to the statutory maximum and USSG §5Gl.1, in
defendant's case, this offense level carries a recommended advisory sentence of 25 years
regardless of criminal history. The parties agree that 25 years would not be an appropriate
sentence for a plea and in light of the sentencing factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3553. After extensive negotiation and taking into consideration factors such as
defendant's minimal criminal history, lack of violence involved in the offense, the significant
savings in government resources involved in not having a trial and balanced against the extent
and serious nature of the offense, the parties have agreed that the appropriate sentence would be
an aggregate term of imprisonment consisting of a cap of one hundred and fifty (150) months
14
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 15 of 21 PageID #: 1667
and the forfeiture of all items set forth in the indictment and bill of particulars, with the rest of
the sentencing issues left to the discretion of the Court.
d.
Criminal History: The determination of the defendant's Criminal History
Category shall be left to the Court. Either party may challenge, before and at sentencing, the
finding of the Presentence Report as to the defendant's criminal history and the applicable
category. The defendant's criminal history is known to the defendant and is available in the
Pretrial Services Report.
e.
Effect of Parties' U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Analysis: The parties agree that
the Court is not bound by the Guidelines analysis agreed to herein. The parties may not have
foreseen all applicable Guidelines. The Court may, in its discretion, apply or not apply any
Guideline despite the agreement herein and the parties shall not be permitted to withdraw from
the plea agreement.
7.
WAIVER OF APPEAL AND POST-CONVICTION RIGHTS:
a.
Appeal: The defendant has been fully apprised by defense counsel of the
defendant's rights concerning appeal and fully understands the right to appeal the sentence under
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742.
(1) Non-Sentencing Issues: The parties waive all rights to appeal all
non-jurisdictional, non-sentencing issues, including, but not limited to, any issues relating to
pretrial motions, discovery and the guilty plea.
(2) Sentencing Issues: In the event the Court accepts the plea, accepts the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Total Offense Level agreed to herein, and, after determining a Sentencing
Guidelines range, sentences the defendant to one hundred and fifty (150) months or below that
range, then, as part of this agreement, the defendant hereby waives all rights to appeal all
sentencing issues other than Criminal History. Similarly, the Government hereby waives all
rights to appeal all sentencing issues other than Criminal History, provided the Court accepts the
plea, the agreed Total Offense Level and sentences the defendant to one hundred and fifty (150)
months or above that range.
15
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 16 of 21 PageID #: 1668
b.
Habeas Corpus: The defendant agrees to waive all rights to contest the
conviction or sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including one pursuant to Title 28,
United States Code, Section 2255, except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective
assistance of counsel.
c.
Right to Records: The defendant waives all rights, whether asserted directly or
by a representative, to request from any department or agency of the United States any records
pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including any records that may be
sought under the Freedom of Information Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section 522, or the
Privacy Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552(a).
8.
OTHER:
a.
Disclosures Required by the United States Probation Office: The defendant
agrees to truthfully complete and sign forms as required by the United States Probation Office
prior to sentencing and consents to the release of these forms and any supporting documentation
by the United States Probation Office to the government.
b.
Civil or Administrative Actions not Barred; Effect on Other Governmental
Agencies:
Nothing contained herein limits the rights and authority of the United States to take any
civil, tax, immigration/deportation or administrative action against the defendant.
c.
Supervised Release: Pursuant to any supervised release term, the Court will
impose standard conditions upon the defendant and may impose special conditions related to the
crime defendant committed. These conditions will be restrictions on the defendant to which the
defendant will be required to adhere. Violation of the conditions of supervised release resulting
in revocation may require the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment equal to the length of
the term of supervised release, but not greater than the term set forth in Title 18, United States
Code, Section 3583(e)(3), without credit for the time served after release. The defendant
understands that parole has been abolished.
16
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 17 of 21 PageID #: 1669
d.
Mandatory Special Assessment: This offense is subject to the provisions of the
Criminal Fines Improvement Act of 1987 and the Court is required to impose a mandatory
special assessment of $100 per count for a total of $3 00, which the defendant agrees to pay at the
time of sentencing. Money paid by the defendant toward any restitution or fine imposed by the
Court shall be first used to pay any unpaid mandatory special assessment.
e.
Possibility of Detention: The defendant may be subject to immediate detention
pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3143.
f.
Fines, Restitution and Costs of Incarceration and Supervision:
The Court may impose a fine, restitution (in addition to any penalty authoriied by law),
, costs of incarceration and costs of supervision. The defendant agrees that any fine or restitution
imposed by the Court will be due and payable immediately. Pursuant to Title 18, United States
Code, Section 3663A, an order of restitution is mandatory for all crimes listed in Section
3663A(c). Regardless of the Count of conviction, the amount of mandatory restitution imposed
shall include all amounts allowed by Section 3663A(b) and the amount ofloss agreed to by the
pmiies, including all relevant conduct loss. The defendant agrees to provide full restitution to all
victims of all charges in the indictment.
g.
Forfeiture:
In addition to the property discussed about in Paragraph 2 of this agreement, the
defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States what, if any, interest he has in the following
property in that such sum in the aggregate is property constituting, or derived from any proceeds
the defendant obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the Conspiracy to Distribute Schedule I
Controlled Substances and Schedule I Controlled Substance Analogues Intended for Human
Consumption and Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering or property intended to facilitate
the commission of such offenses. Specifically, he agrees to forfeit any and all right, title and
interest in the personal property, or portions thereof, subject to forfeiture under Title 18, United
17
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 18 of 21 PageID #: 1670
States Code, Sections 981(a)(l) and 982(a), Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, and Title
28, United States Code, Section 2461, which includes:
a.
$16,115.00 U.S. currency;
b.
All monies, funds, and financial instruments deposited or credited to First
National Bank, account ending in 3890, in the name of BRETT and
SHERRI BEEMAN; and
c.
$11,213.00 U.S. currency seized from MARCIA GRONEK on April 22,
2013,
d.
$14,430.00 U.S. currency;
e.
792.8 lbs. of silver colored coins and pieces; and
f.
27.60 pounds of silver colored bars.
The defendant further agrees not to assist any other individual in contesting those
forfeitures on the defendant's behalf and agrees that there was reasonable cause to seize the
aforementioned currency, computers, cell phones, electronics, other property or assets. The
defendant agrees to prevent the disbursement of any and all monies, property or assets derived
from unlawful activities, if said disbursements are within the defendant's direct or indirect
interest or control. The defendant agrees to take all steps necessary and to execute any
documents needed, to transfer title or ownership of these items to the government, to include
truthful testimony to rebut the claims of nominees and/or alleged third party owners of any of
these seized items.
h.
Consent to Destruction of Property:
The Defendant represents that he has an ownership interest in the substances, whether or
not tested, as well as all items used in the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of said
substances, including but not limited to all of the exhibits listed in the investigative reports that
were seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration or any other law enforcement agency in
18
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 19 of 21 PageID #: 1671
connection with this investigation. Defendant consents to the destruction of any and all
substances, as well as all items used in the manufacturing, packaging, and distribution of said
substances, that were seized by the Drug Enforcement Administration or any other law
enforcement in connection with this investigation. The Defendant further agrees to abandon any
interest he has in the described property, and he waives any right to abandonment procedures as
described in 41 CFR 102-41.
9.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS:
In pleading guilty, the defendant acknowledges, fully understands and hereby waives his
rights, including but not limited to: the right to plead not guilty to the charges; the right to be
tried by a jury in a public and speedy trial; the right to file pretrial motions, including motions to
suppress evidence; the right at such trial to a presumption of innocence; the right to require the
government to prove the entire case against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt; the right
not to testify; the right not to present any evidence; the right to be protected from compelled
self-incrimination; the right at trial to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; the right to
testify and present evidence and the right to compel the attendance of witnesses. The defendant
further understands that by this guilty plea, the defendant expressly waives all the rights set forth
in this paragraph.
The defendant fully understands that the defendant has the right to be represented by
counsel, and if necessary, to have the Court appoint counsel at trial and at every other stage of
the proceeding. The defendant's counsel has explained these rights and the consequences of the
waiver of these rights. The defendant fully understands that, as a result of the guilty plea, no trial
will, in fact, occur and that the only action remaining to be taken in this case is the imposition of
the sentence.
The defendant is fully satisfied with the representation received from defense counsel.
The defendant has reviewed the government's evidence and discussed the government's case and
all possible defenses and defense witnesses with defense counsel. Defense counsel has
19
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 20 of 21 PageID #: 1672
completely and satisfactorily explored all areas which the defendant has requested relative to the
government's case and any defenses.
10.
VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND PLEA AGREEMENT:
This document constitutes the entire agreement between the defendant and the
government, and no other promises or inducements have been made, directly or indirectly, by
any agent of the government, including any Department of Justice attorney, concerning any plea
to be entered in this case. In addition, the defendant states that no person has, directly or
indirectly, threatened or coerced the defendant to do or refrain from doing anything in
connection with any aspect of this case, including entering a plea of guilty.
The defendant acknowledges having voluntarily entered into both the plea agreement and
the guilty plea. The defendant further acknowledges that this guilty plea is made of the
defendant's own free will and that the defendant is, in fact, guilty.
11.
CONSEQUENCES OF POST-PLEA MISCONDUCT:
After pleading guilty and before sentencing, if defendant commits any crime, other than
minor traffic offenses, violates any conditions of release that results in revocation, violates any
term of this guilty-plea agreement, intentionally provides misleading, incomplete or untruthful
information to the U.S. Probation Office or fails to appear for sentencing, the United States, at its
option, may be released from its obligations under this agreement. The Government may also, in
its discretion, proceed with this agreement and may advocate for any sentencing position
supported by the facts, including but not limited to obstruction of justice and denial of
acceptance of responsibility.
20
Case: 4:14-cr-00152-RWS Doc. #: 532 Filed: 03/29/16 Page: 21 of 21 PageID #: 1673
12.
NO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA:
Pursuant to Rule 1 l(c) and (d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant
understands that there will be no right to withdraw the plea entered under this agreement, except
where the Court rejects the portion of the plea agreement which deals with the sentence to be
imposed in this matter.
aMcneiWO
~
S.3S"'i'S
James
Assistant United States Attorney
Date
.i;...o--..._,......_£>..<....
1------cC)_
2/;-9/~
Nanci McCarthy
Attorney for Defendant
Date
21
-2