www.BackgroundNow.com Blog

ELQUAN STURDIVANT, a/k/a “L-Easy”, age 23, of Albany, New York, was sentenced yesterday by United States District Judge Gary L. Sharpe to be imprisoned for 186 months, to be followed by supervised release for 5 years, and a $200 special assessment. This sentence follows STURDIVANT’S pleas of guilty to a two counts of a federal Indictment charging him with participating in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) conspiracy and a narcotics conspiracy relating to the criminal activities of the Jungle Junkies gang, which operated within the City of Albany. STURDIVANT is the fifteenth defendant (and fourteenth gang member) to be sentenced. In connection with his guilty plea, STURDIVANT admitted that: STURDIVANT was a Jungle Junkies gang member and conspired with other persons to possess with intent to distribute and distribute cocaine base (crack cocaine) within the Northern District of New York. STURDIVANT’S involvement in the narcotics conspiracy involved the possession with intent to distribute and distribution of more than 500 but less than 1500 grams of cocaine base (crack cocaine). On January 31, 2005, at 11 Lexington Avenue in Albany, STURDIVANT distributed cocaine base (crack cocaine).

The United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation jointly announced today that four USP McCreary County Inmates and two others were charged in two separate federal indictments. The defendants were charged with conspiring to distribute marijuana, providing a prohibited object to an inmate, and an inmate in possession of a prohibited object.

The indictments allege that 33-year-old Rico Mallard Crump and 25-year-old Ronnie Lynard Morrow, both inmates at the prison, conspired with their girlfriends to distribute marijuana. Shirley Munsey and Shelia T. Collins, both of Charlotte, N.C. provided marijuana to Morrow and Crump during a visit to the prison.

Crump and Morrow were charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possession of a prohibited object. Collins and Munsey were charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and providing a prohibited object to an inmate.

Another Indictment accuses inmate Doug Rogers, 38 and Samantha Lee Ann Farmer of Oliver Springs, Tenn. of the same offenses listed above. The indictment alleges that on September 6, 2008, Farmer provided her boyfriend, Rogers, with marijuana.

Farmer was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and providing a prohibited object to an inmate, while Rogers was charged with conspiracy to distribute marijuana and possessing a prohibited object.

The investigation preceding the Indictment was conducted by the Bureau of Prison and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Indictment was presented to the grand jury by Assistant United States Attorney Patrick H. Molloy.

A court date for the defendants hasn’t been set by the Court in London, Ky. If convicted, all the defendants face a maximum prison sentence of five years each.

However, any sentence following conviction would be mposed by the court after consideration of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of sentences.

The indictment of a person by a grand jury is an accusation only, and that person presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

LARRY P. LANGFORD, 62, Mayor of Birmingham, Alabama, and former President of the Jefferson County, Alabama, Commission, WILLIAM B. BLOUNT, 55, a Montgomery, Alabama, investment banker, and ALBERT W. LAPIERRE, 58, a lobbyist in Birmingham, Alabama, have been indicted on charges of conspiracy, bribery, fraud, money laundering, and filing false tax returns in connection with a long-running bribery scheme related to bond and other financial transactions of Jefferson County. The 101 count federal indictment was unsealed this morning in U.S. District Court according to U.S. Attorney Alice H. Martin, Special Agent in Charge Carmen Adams of the Birmingham Division of the FBI, and Reginael D. McDaniel, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations. This indictment supersedes an indictment returned in June that has remained under seal while the investigation continued.

“Former Commission President Langford owed a duty of loyalty to Jefferson County in the administration of the county’s financial affairs. He sold out his public office to his friends Blount and LaPierre for about $235,000 in expensive clothes, Rolex watches and cash to pay his growing personal debt. All the while, Blount was paid fees topping $7 million,” said U. S. Attorney Alice H. Martin. “Through a web of financing agreements, Langford required many institutions to use Blount as a consultant so Blount would make fees and in turn payoff Langford. It was a classic pay to play scheme.”

LANGFORD conspired to solicit and accept bribes from BLOUNT and LAPIERRE to use his influence as President of the Jefferson County Commission and head of the Department of Finance and General Services to include BLOUNT and his company, Blount Parish & Co., Inc., in Jefferson County financial transactions, primarily bond and swap transactions related to Jefferson County’s multi-billion dollar sewer debt. Some of the financial transactions were handled through JP Morgan which, as a condition for getting the financing business of the county through LANGFORD, had to pay Blount Parrish fees, or associate Goldman Sachs which then paid Blount Parrish consulting fees. Another example of LANGFORD’S assistance to BLOUNT was on Ocotber 20, 2003, when LANGFORD, acting for the Jefferson County Commission, entered into a financial transaction for $110 million that included Bank of America and Lehman Brothers Special Financing, Inc. The agreement required Lehman Brothers to pay a broker’s fee or arrangement fee of $35,000 to Blount Parrish and Co., Inc. Between 2003 and 2006 BLOUNT and his companies received approximately $7.1 million in fees in connection with Jefferson County financial transactions. BLOUNT, in turn, paid LAPIERRE approximately $219,500 in consulting fees. To influence and reward LANGFORD in connection with Jefferson County financial transactions, BLOUNT and LAPIERRE paid, and LANGFORD solicited and accepted, approximately $235,000 in cash, loan pay offs, and expensive clothing and jewelry.

“The message today should be clear. It does not matter what position you hold or what connections you have. If you choose to violate the public’s trust you will be held accountable for your actions,” stated Carmen S. Adams, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Among the items of value offered by BLOUNT and LAPIERRE and solicited and accepted LANGFORD to influence and reward him in connection with financial transactions from which BLOUNT and LAPIERRE were paid substantial fees are:

BLOUNT transferred $69,000 to LAPIERRE, who wrote a check to LANGFORD for that same amount. LANGFORD then deposited the money into his account and used a portion of the money to purchase audio equipment and expensive clothing. (Counts 1-5)

BLOUNT helped LANGFORD obtain a $50,000 six month, unsecured loan from Colonial Bank. When this loan became past due, LAPIERRE obtained a $50,000 loan from Colonial Bank to pay the LANGFORD loan. BLOUNT then transferred $50,000 to LAPIERRE to pay off LAPIERRE’S Colonial Bank loan.(Count 6, paragraphs 8-9, 16-18)

BLOUNT transferred $30,000 to LAPIERRE, who wrote a check to LANGFORD for that same amount. LANGFORD then used the money to obtain an official bank check to pay his personal taxes. (Counts 7-9)

While on trips to New York City with LANGFORD and others related to Jefferson County bond transactions, BLOUNT bought expensive clothing and jewelry for LANGFORD from stores such as Salvatore Ferragamo, Turbell & Asser, Tourneau, Ermenegildo Zegna, and Century 21. Several of these items were mailed to LANGFORD’S county office. BLOUNT and LAPIERRE set up an account at Remon’s Clothiers in downtown Birmingham for LANGFORD. Over the next several years, LANGFORD bought clothing from Remon’s and BLOUNT and LAPIERRE paid LANGFORD’S account. BLOUNT also bought Rolex watches and other expensive jewelry from Bromberg & Co. for LANGFORD. (Counts 10-86).

Counts 87-89 charged LANGFORD with filing false tax returns for the years 2003, 2004, and 2005. He is charged with failing to report taxable income, the value of the bribes, totaling $125,356.73 in 2003; $81,419.52 in 2004; and $22,186.97 in 2005. Counts 95-98 charge LAPIERRE with filing false tax returns for the years 2003 - 2006 for under reporting his income by over $280,000.

“Public officials must comply with the same tax obligations as the citizens they were elected to serve. No one is above the law” stated Reginael D. McDaniel, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation.

Counts 90-94 charges BLOUNT with mail fraud and bribery in connection with his bribing of former Jefferson County Commission Mary M. Buckelew who served with LANGFORD on the Commission. These bribes arose from the purchase of expensive items from the Salvatore Ferragamo store and spa treatment on New York City trips in 2003 and 2004. Buckelew pleaded guilty earlier this fall and agreed to cooperate with the investigation.

Counts 99-101 seek criminal forfeiture in the amount of approximately $7.6 million from each defendant. This amount includes the bribes paid to and accepted by LANGFORD, as well as the fees paid to BLOUNT and LAPIERRE.

LANGFORD is named in 60 counts of the Superseding Indictment, BLOUNT is named in 43 counts, and LAPIERRE is named in 22 counts. The maximum term of imprisonment for each bribery and money laundering count is 10 years, each fraud count is 20 years, the conspiracy count is 5 years, and each tax count is 3 years. In addition to many years in prison, each defendant faces substantial maximum fines.

This case was investigated by Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service. Assistant United States Attorneys Matt Hart, Tamarra Matthews Johnson, Scarlett Singleton, and George Martin are prosecuting this case on behalf of the United States.

The superseding indictment contains only charges. A defendant is presumed innocent of the charges and it will be the government’s burden to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

An Administrative Law Judge has found the allegations in the Order Instituting Administrative and Cease and Desist Proceedings to be true, and, accordingly, has issued an Order to Cease and Desist, Revoking Registration, Suspending Exemption By Default, and Canceling Hearing in Rudy 45, Admin. Proc. No. 3-13254 (Default Order). The Default Order finds that Rudy 45 violated Sections 17(g), 18(d), 18(i), 23(a), and 56(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 and Rule 17g-1 thereunder; Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder; and Securities Act of 1933, Regulation E, Rule 609 by failing to file reports on Form 2-E. (Rel. 34-59028; IC-28525; File No. 3-13254)

Angela Raposa, who owned Title America Closing Services, pleaded guilty today to a federal fraud charge, admitting that she used about $1.3 million from her company’s escrow account to pay for personal expenses.

United States Attorney Robert Clark Corrente announced the guilty plea, which Raposa entered before U.S. District Court Judge William E. Smith in U.S. District Court, Providence.

At the plea hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew J. Reich said the government could prove that, between February 2006 and February 2007, Raposa wrote checks and used a debit card against her company’s escrow account to pay for such personal expenses as residential utility bills and mortgage payments, hair salon fees, cosmetics, clothing, a car, personal trips, and payments to relatives.

Proceeds of real estate transactions were deposited into the escrow account and were supposed to be used to be disbursed at real estate closings, primarily to pay off existing mortgages. Stewart Title served as an underwriter for Title America and discovered Raposa’s fraudulent scheme in February 2007. As the underwriter, Stewart Title had to pay off mortgages totaling $1,301,826 from five real estate transactions.

Raposa incorporated Title America in 2005. She was president of the company, which had between five and seven employees in addition to her.

Raposa, 32, of Peach Orchard Drive, Riverside, pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud. The maximum penalty is 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the amount of gain or loss. Raposa is free on unsecured bond pending sentencing, which is scheduled for April 17.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation investigated the case.

Letitia Ramona Mays was sentenced Friday to 54 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release and ordered to pay $357,214.17 in restitution for her participation in an identity theft scheme.

Mays, 26, of Oakland , pleaded guilty on September 5 to one count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. According to the plea agreement, Mays admitted to agreeing with others to submit fraudulent credit card applications and to engage in transactions using the personal identifying information of other people.

Mays admitted to being responsible for fraudulent purchases at rent-a-car companies; home improvement stores; lumber companies; plumbing supply stores; electrical supply companies; furniture stores; Louis Vuitton; jewelry stores; department stores; clothing stores; cellular phone stores; and hotels, including the Disneyland hotel and the Beverly Hills Le Meridien. On at least one occasion Mays stated that she rented a moving truck as a means to transport her stolen merchandise from the store.

Mays was indicted by a federal grand jury on April 2. She was charged with conspiracy, identity theft, access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The sentence was handed down by U.S. District Court Judge D. Lowell Jensen following a guilty plea to the crimes of conspiracy to commit access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2) and aggravated identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).

Wade M. Rhyne is the Assistant U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Alfonso Martinez. The prosecution is the result of a two-year investigation by the United States Secret Service, the Alameda Police Department, and the Twin Cities Police Department.

An 18-count indictment charging Odell Folks of Brooklyn, N.Y., Sharon Smith of Bronx, N.Y., Tanya Smith of Waterbury, Conn., and Keith Terry of Dallas, Ga., with conspiracy to file false claims for refund in the form of false income tax returns was unsealed today, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. The indictment was returned on Nov. 26, 2008, by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of New York.

According to the indictment, between approximately May 1, 2003, and Feb. 28, 2005, Folks and others engaged in a scheme to defraud the IRS through the submission of false income tax returns filed in the names of other individuals. The indictment alleges that Folks and Sharon Smith submitted the false income tax returns to the IRS in the names of clients of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) and the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO). HRA offers a wide range of social service programs to individuals receiving public assistance. CEO provides comprehensive employment services for persons with criminal records, including temporary jobs for individuals recently released from prison. The indictment states that both Folks and Sharon Smith were employed as job counselors at CEO.

According to the indictment, Folks and Sharon Smith obtained names and information of HRA and CEO clients and used that information to seek refunds by filing false tax returns with the IRS. Based on the false documents, the indictment alleges that the IRS issued income tax refunds in the form of U.S. Treasury checks and mailed the refunds to false addresses. The indictment further asserts that Folks and his co-conspirators obtained and cashed the refund checks. The indictment also states that Tanya Smith and Keith Terry used their bank accounts to cash some of those false Treasury checks.

Folks also was charged with eight counts of mail fraud, five counts of presenting false claims, and three counts of making and subscribing false income tax returns. Sharon Smith also was charged with seven counts of mail fraud and five counts of presenting false claims. Terry also was charged with five counts of presenting false claims and one count of making and subscribing a false income tax return.

“Stamping out tax refund fraud wherever it is found is a top priority for the Department of Justice and IRS,” said Nathan J. Hochman, Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Tax Division. “Those who try to steal the taxpayers’ money should know that there are severe consequences, including the potential for incarceration, steep fines and having to pay back all the stolen refund money.”

If convicted of the conspiracy, defendants face the following maximum penalties: false claims – 10 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine; presenting false claims – five years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine per count; mail fraud – 20 years imprisonment and a $250,000 fine per count; and making or subscribing a false tax return – three years imprisonment and up to a $250,000 fine.

“Refunds are issued to taxpayers who are entitled to them,” said Eileen Mayer, Chief, IRS Criminal Investigation. “Criminal Investigation and the Department of Justice will continue to work to aggressively investigate and prosecute those who prepare false tax returns to claim improper refunds.”

This case is being prosecuted by Tax Division trial attorney Mark F. Daly and Assistant U.S. Attorney Shreve Ariail of the Eastern District of New York. This case was investigated by the IRS Criminal Investigation Division office in Bridgeport, Conn., and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in New Haven, Conn.

An indictment is merely a formal charge by the grand jury. Each defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in U.S. District Court.

TAHIR ALI KHAN pleaded guilty to a four-count superseding Information charging him with conspiracy to commit bank, wire and credit card fraud, and aggravated identity theft. ALI KHAN was the lead defendant in a 15 defendant, multi-count Indictment unsealed on August 15, 2007, and is the tenth defendant to plead guilty. According to the Indictment, the Superseding Information, other documents filed in the case, and statements made in court in connection with ALI KHAN’s guilty plea:

ALI KHAN was the leader of a fraud ring (the “Khan Ring”) that produced false identification documents purporting to have been issued by state and federal government authorities, including driver’s licenses, resident alien cards, social security cards, and tax identification documents. The false identification documents were produced in the names of fraudulent identities, to which members of the Khan Ring referred to among themselves as “chickens.” In order to build financial credit for these fake identities, the Khan ring fraudulently established bank accounts, credit card accounts, apartment leases, and telephone and utility accounts in the names of the “chickens.” The Khan Ring also applied for and obtained lucrative bank loans, home mortgage loans, increased credit card limits, lines of credit, and other financial benefits in the names of the fraudulent identities or in the names of sham businesses supposedly operated by those fraudulent identities. The Khan Ring then defaulted on the loans and credit card debt, causing millions in losses to numerous financial institutions, including the Bank of America. Current loss estimates from the Khan Ring’s fraudulent activities exceed $20 million.

ALI KHAN is scheduled to be sentenced on February 10, 2009, at 4:30 p.m., before United States District Judge LORRETTA

A. PRESKA. ALI KHAN faces a statutory maximum sentence of 14 years in prison, a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gain or loss from the offense, and mandatory restitution to the victims of the offense. ALI KHAN, 32, has been held in custody since his arrest on August 15, 2007.

In addition to ALI KHAN, nine other defendants have pleaded guilty:

OSCAR SANCHEZ pleaded guilty on November 13, 2008 to one count of bank fraud, and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 10, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.

NAVEED ALI BHINDAR pleaded guilty on June 6, 2008 to one count of money laundering, and is scheduled to be sentenced on December 22, 2008, 10:30 a.m.

FRANKLIN RODRIGUEZ pleaded guilty on July 1, 2008, to three counts of conspiracy – to commit identification document fraud, bank fraud, and to transport and sell stolen vehicles – and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 11, 2009 at 4:00 p.m.

NADEEM KHAN pleaded guilty on July 31, 2008, to one count of conspiracy to commit identification document fraud, and was sentenced on November 24, 2008 to 46 months in prison.

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ pleaded guilty on September 26, 2008 to three counts of conspiracy – to commit identification document fraud, access device fraud, and bank fraud – and is scheduled to be sentenced on March 26, 2009, at 4:00 p.m.

BASHARAT JARRAL pleaded guilty on September 29, 2008, to one count of storage and sale of stolen vehicles, and is scheduled to be sentenced on January 6, 2009, at 4:00 p.m.

QAISER QURESHI pleaded guilty on October 27, 2008, to one count of conspiracy to commit identification document fraud, and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 11, 2009, at 4:30 p.m.

SHAHEEN MUKHTAR pleaded guilty on November 5, 2008, to one count of conspiracy to commit identification document fraud, and one count of wire fraud, and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 11, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.

FAYYAZ AHMED pleaded guilty on November 12, 2008, to one count of access device fraud, and is scheduled to be sentenced on February 17, 2009, at 10;00 a.m.

All of the defendants awaiting sentencing are scheduled to be sentenced by Judge PRESKA.

Criminal charges remain pending against the following defendants: ARIE BENSHIMON, SYED HASSAN, GHULAM MEHMOOD, and MOHAMMAD SHARIF. One defendant, SYED SHAH, remains a fugitive. As to these five defendants, the charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

The filing of these charges is the culmination of a 16- month investigation conducted by the New York State Attorney General’s Office with the New York City Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigation, New York State Police, the Hoover, Alabama Police Department, and the New York State Banking Department. Valuable assistance was provided by the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Postal Inspection Service, the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, the Social Security Administration, and the United States Secret Service.

A British marine hose manufacturer has agreed to plead guilty and pay $4.54 million in criminal fines for participating in a conspiracy to rig bids, fix prices and allocate market shares of marine hose sold in the United States and elsewhere, the Department of Justice announced today.

A one-count felony charge was filed today in U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., against Dunlop Oil & Marine Ltd. (Dunlop), a manufacturer of marine hose located in Grimsby, England.  Under the terms of the plea agreement, which is subject to court approval, Dunlop has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $4.54 million and to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.  Dunlop is the second corporation to be charged in the investigation.

“This conspiracy victimized companies involved in the off-shore extraction and transportation of petroleum products and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD),” said Deborah A. Garza, Acting Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Department’s Antitrust Division.  “Ultimately U.S. consumers were left holding the tab.  The Antitrust Division will seek stiff penalties for those who participate in price-fixing conspiracies.”

Marine hose is a flexible rubber hose used to transfer oil between tankers and storage facilities.  During the conspiracy, the cartel affected prices for hundreds of millions of dollars worth of marine hose and related products worldwide.

Dunlop is charged with participating in the conspiracy from at least as early as 1999 until as late as May 2007.  The Department charged that during the conspiracy the defendants and their co-conspirators:

*         Attended meetings or otherwise engaged in discussions in the United States and elsewhere by telephone, facsimile and electronic mail regarding the sale of marine hose
*         Agreed during those meetings and discussions to allocate shares of the marine hose market among the conspirators;
*         Agreed during those meetings and discussions to a price list for marine hose in order to implement and monitor the conspiracy;
*         Agreed during those meetings and discussions not to compete for one another’s customers either by not submitting prices or bids to certain customers or by submitting intentionally high prices or bids to certain customers;
*         Submitted bids in accordance with the agreements reached;
*         Provided information received from customers in the United States and elsewhere about upcoming marine hose jobs to a co-conspirator who was not an employee of any of the marine hose manufacturers, but who served as the coordinator of the conspiracy, acted as a clearinghouse for information to be shared among the conspirators, and was paid by the manufacturers for coordinating the conspiracy;
*         Received marine hose prices for customers in the United States and elsewhere from the co-conspirator coordinator of the conspiracy;
*         Sold marine hose to customers in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices under the agreements reached;
*         Accepted payment for marine hose sold in the United States and elsewhere at collusive and noncompetitive prices;
*         Authorized or consented to the participation of subordinate employees in the conspiracy; and
*         Concealed the conspiracy and conspiratorial contacts through various means, including code names and private email accounts and telephone numbers.

Dunlop is charged with violating the Sherman Act, which carries a maximum fine of $100 million for corporations.  The maximum fine may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victims of the crime, if either of those amounts is greater than the statutory maximum fine.

Dunlop executives Bryan Allison and David Brammar pleaded guilty in December 2007 to participating in the marine hose conspiracy.  Under the terms of their plea agreements, Allison was sentenced to pay a $100,000 criminal fine and agreed to serve 24 months in prison and Brammar was sentenced to pay a $75,000 criminal fine and agreed to serve 20 months in prison.  Another arrested executive, Peter Whittle, a former Dunlop executive and now the sole proprietor of PW Consulting (Oil & Marine) Ltd., pleaded guilty for his leadership role in the conspiracy in December 2007, was sentenced to pay a $100,000 criminal fine and agreed to serve 30 months in prison.

Allison, Brammar and Whittle also were arrested and criminally charged with cartel offenses by U.K. authorities.  On Nov. 14, 2008, the U.K. Court of Appeal sentenced Allison to serve 24 months in jail, Brammar to serve 20 months in jail, and Whittle to serve 30 months in jail.  The U.S. plea agreements in effect provided for concurrent prison sentences in the United States and in the U.K.  Thus, because the U.K. prison sentences either matched or exceeded the sentences recommended in the U.S. plea agreements, the defendants were not required to serve prison sentences in the United States.

In addition, Uwe Bangert, a German national and former executive with Dunlop’s former parent company, Phoenix AG, was indicted on July 19, 2007, for his participation in the marine hose cartel.  A trial date has not been set.

Eight foreign executives, including Allison, Brammar and Whittle, were arrested on May 2, 2007, in Houston and San Francisco and charged for their roles in the marine hose cartel, following a cartel meeting in Houston.

Manuli Rubber Industries SpA (Manuli), Robert L. Furness, the former president of Manuli’s former Plantation, Fla.-based subsidiary, and Charles J. Gillespie, a former Manuli regional sales manager have pleaded guilty for their roles in this conspiracy.  Under the terms of the plea agreements, which are subject to court approval, Manuli has agreed to pay a criminal fine of $2 million, Furness has agreed to serve 14 months in prison and pay a $75,000 criminal fine, and Gillespie has agreed to serve 12 months and one day in jail and pay a $20,000 criminal fine.  Manuli, Furness and Gillespie also have agreed to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.  Francesco Scaglia, the deputy manager of Manuli’s Oil & Marine Division, and Val M. Northcutt, another regional sales manager, were acquitted on Nov. 11, 2008, in the Southern District of Florida after being charged with participating in the conspiracy.

Executives with Trelleborg Industrie S.A.S., Christian Caleca and Jacques Cognard, pleaded guilty to charges stemming from their roles in the conspiracy.  In December 2007, each was sentenced to serve 14 months in prison.  Caleca was sentenced to pay a $75,000 criminal fine and Cognard was sentenced to pay a $100,000 criminal fine.  Caleca and Cognard also have agreed to cooperate fully in the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.

Giovanni Scodeggio, an Italian citizen who is the manager of Parker ITR S.r.l.’s Oil & Gas Business Unit, pleaded guilty to a one-count felony charge  in U.S. District Court in Houston in August 2008.  Scodeggio was sentenced to pay a criminal fine of $20,000, to serve six months of house arrest and to cooperate with the Department’s ongoing antitrust investigation.

In May 2007, Misao Hioki, an executive involved in the sale of marine hose for Bridgestone Corporation in Japan, was charged for his involvement in the conspiracy.  The charges involving Hioki are pending in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Florida.

The investigation is being conducted by the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS) of the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General, the U.S. Navy Criminal Investigative Service and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  Law enforcement agencies from multiple foreign jurisdictions are investigating or assisting in the ongoing matter.

“Price fixing and bid rigging are serious crimes that drain resources from the Department of Defense and the American taxpayer.  The Defense Criminal Investigative Service takes very seriously all violations of U.S. antitrust laws that affect products and services procured for our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.  DCIS aggressively investigates those who seek to cheat the DOD and the public by conspiring to suppress competition,” said Sharon Woods, Director, DCIS.

Today’s charge is an example of the Department’s commitment to protect U.S. taxpayers from public procurement fraud through its creation of the National Procurement Fraud Task Force.  The National Procurement Fraud Initiative, announced in October 2006, is designed to promote the early detection, identification, prevention and prosecution of procurement fraud associated with the increase in contracting activity for national security and other government programs.

Anyone with information concerning bid rigging or other anticompetitive conduct in the marine hose industry is urged to call the National Criminal Enforcement Section of the Antitrust Division at 202-307-6694, or the Long Beach, Calif., Resident Agency of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service at 562-256-2501.

Danny James Burnett arrested for Bank Robbery.

A lone white male entered the City Employee Credit Union at 4903 N. Broadway in Knoxville. He presented a note demanding money to a teller. The note claimed the man had a weapon. After receiving an undetermined amount of money, the robber left the bank on foot. Witnesses, including an off-duty KPD officer, saw the man get into a vehicle. The description they provided was relayed to another KPD officer who performed a traffic stop on Burnett some miles away on Merchants Drive. The arrest was completed without incident. Records show Burnett, aged 40, was born in Virginia, but has been residing in the Knoxville area.

Burnett, who is being charged federally on a complaint of Bank Robbery.

All defendants are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

Monday, November 24, 2008, DANIEL CARL SHERWIN of Elizabeth City, North Carolina, pled guilty before United States District Court Judge Terrence Boyle to two counts of manufacturing child pornography in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2551, for conduct that occurred in December of 2007.

SHERWIN, a registered sex offender previously convicted in the State of Utah of eight counts of 2 nd degree sexual exploitation of a minor, moved to the Elizabeth City area in 2004. In 2008, agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation developed a lead pointing to SHERWIN as a participant in an online photo-sharing group engaged in trading images of child pornography. Following up on that lead, agents approached SHERWIN in April of 2008, and learned that SHERWIN not only participated in the online exchanges, but was using two young children to make child pornography of his own.

The FBI, together with agents of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, conducted forensic examination of SHERWIN’s computer and related equipment to confirm their findings. Because of SHERWIN’s prior criminal history, he faces a minimum of 25 years’ imprisonment at the time of his sentencing, presently scheduled for February of 2009, plus an additional 10 years for having committed the crime while being required by law to register as a sex offender.

United States Attorney George E.B. Holding congratulated the FBI and SBI for their coordinated effort. “While it is a tremendous hardship to have to discover conduct this horrific, I am grateful to these agencies for yet again working across jurisdictional lines to bring children to safety. I am proud of the cooperation I have consistently seen from these agencies.”

“I would be remiss not to add what a painful illustration this case makes of the dangers presented by the growing prevalence of child sexual exploitation crimes. This defendant had previously been prosecuted for his use of child pornography under laws that provided no serious punishment for his conduct. As a result, two innocent children have now suffered harms we can never completely repair. Child pornography crimes, in every form, represent a grave danger to our community, and my office is committed to preventing stories like these.”

This case is part of the Project Safe Childhood initiative, a national program aimed at ensuring that criminals exploiting children are effectively prosecuted by making full use of all available law enforcement resources at every level. For more information about this important national project, Project Safe Childhood, go to www.projectsafechildhood.gov.

Investigation of the case was conducted by the FBI and the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation. Assistant U. S. Attorney Jay Exum handled the case for the Government.

Christian Popescu, 37, of Kenmore, Wash., was charged today in U.S. District Court in Seattle with sale or receipt of stolen goods.  Popescu was arrested late yesterday, after setting up a deal to sell an 18 carat gold bookmark which allegedly was first given to Adolf Hitler by his mistress Eva Braun.  The bookmark was stolen in the fall of 2002, from an auction house in Madrid, Spain just days before it was to be sold at auction.  While most of the other items taken in the “smash and grab” robbery have been recovered, this is the first time in six years that the artifact has surfaced.

According to the complaint filed in federal court, in August 2008, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer working in Seattle got word that someone was trying to sell a golden bookmark that had belonged to Adolf Hitler.  Investigators were able to learn more about the item’s history.  The bookmark allegedly was a gift from Hitler’s mistress, Eva Braun after Hitler’s armies were defeated in the battle of Stalingrad in 1943.  The bookmark was intended to cheer Hitler, and is inscribed in part: “My Adolf, don’t worry… (the defeat)… was only an inconvenience that will not break your certainty of victory.”   The bookmark was to be auctioned in October 2002, by a Madrid, Spain, auction house, when three eastern European thieves stole the bookmark and several pieces of jewelry.  The bookmark apparently had previously belonged to the family of one of Hitler’s armed forces chiefs, who was executed following the Nuremberg trials.

Using a confidential source, agents with ICE set up to “purchase” the artifact yesterday in Bellevue, Wash.  Popescu was arrested when he arrived with the bookmark to make the deal.

Sale or receipt of stolen goods is punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

The charges contained in the complaint are only allegations.  A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

For additional information or to obtain a photo of the bookmark, please contact Emily Langlie, Public Affairs Officer for the United States Attorney’s Office, at 206-553-4110 or Emily.Langlie@usdoj.gov.

William D’Elia was sentenced by United States District Court Judge Thomas I. Vanaskie to 108 months’ imprisonment for conspiring to launder money and witness tampering. D’Elia was also ordered to serve three years of supervised release following his prison term.

According to federal officials, the sentencing of D’Elia constituted the latest chapter in a lengthy investigation and prosecution of this reputed money laundering figure. As United States Attorney Carlson noted: “The sentencing of D’Elia comes after a series of carefully coordinated investigations conducted by state and federal law enforcement agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division; the Pennsylvania State Police; and the U.S. Department of Labor.” According to Mr. Carlson: “today’s sentencing sends a powerful message about the commitment of law enforcement to break the grip of organized criminal money laundering in Northeastern Pennsylvania, and to ensure that the people of central Pennsylvania can live free of the influence of organized criminal figures.”

U.S. Attorney Carlson also thanked the many law enforcement partners whose efforts led to this guilty plea conviction noting, “This investigation is a sterling example of the success we can achieve in law enforcement by working together toward the common goal of justice.”

Pennsylvania State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigations Captain Bret Waggoner stated, “I am very proud of the Pennsylvania State Police Troopers who participated in this investigation and sincerely appreciate the cooperation we received from our law enforcement partners. I also thank the U.S. Attorney’s Office for their leadership in an endeavor that encompassed several years. Mr. D’Elia’s sentence speaks to the seriousness of his actions and sends a strong message to those who engage in organized crime.”

“This case exemplifies how ICE working in concert with the Pennsylvania State Police and other federal agencies, used solid investigative techniques to dismantle a long standing criminal organization,” said John P. Kelleghan, special agent in charge of the ICE office of investigations in Philadelphia. “With the sentencing of William D’Elia, today, we close a chapter on the Bufalino organized crime family and its leadership. Thanks to the collaborative efforts of all the agencies involved, PSP, DOL-OIG, FBI and ICE, we have dismantled an organization that has exploited our community for decades.”

“The significance of this extensive investigation effort and the sentencing of William D’Elia is that it represents the final chapter in the dismantling of the Budalino Pittston crime syndicate,” said Janice K. Fedarcyk, Special Agent in Charge of the Philadelphia Division of the FBI. “The FBI in Philadelphia and all of its law enforcement partners remain committed to identifying and destroying the elements of organized crime that victimize the citizens of the Commonwealth.”

This case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Gordon A.D. Zubrod and Christian Fisanick, Chief of the Criminal Division, United States Attorney’s Office.

CRIMINAL INFORMATION

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THROUGH ITS ATTORNEYS, CHARGES THAT:

DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE

1. Beginning in or about December 2000 and continuing until in or about May 2003, the exact dates being unknown to the United States, the defendant and co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by allocating customers and rigging bids for contracts of plastic marine pilings in the United States and elsewhere. The combination and conspiracy engaged in by the defendant and co-conspirators was in unreasonable restraint of interstate and foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 1).

2. The charged combination and conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding, and concert of action among the defendant and co-conspirators, the substantial terms of which were to allocate customers and rig bids for contracts of plastic marine pilings in the United States and elsewhere. The victims of this conspiracy included the Department of Defense, including the U.S. Navy, as well as private companies.

MEANS AND METHODS OF THE CONSPIRACY

3. For the purpose of forming and carrying out the charged combination and conspiracy, the defendant and co-conspirators did those things that they combined and conspired to do, including, among other things:

1. attended meetings and engaged in discussions by telephone, facsimile and electronic mail, regarding the sale of plastic marine pilings sold in the United States and elsewhere;

2. agreed during those meetings and discussions to allocate jobs and to create and exchange order logs in order to implement and monitor this agreement;

3. agreed during those meetings and discussions not to compete for one another’s customers either by not submitting prices or bids to certain customers, or by submitting intentionally high prices or bids to certain customers;

4. submitted bids in accordance with the agreements reached;

5. sold plastic marine pilings to the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Navy and others pursuant to those agreements, at collusive and noncompetitive prices;

6. accepted payment for plastic marine pilings sold at the collusive and noncompetitive prices; and

7. authorized or consented to the participation of subordinate employees and/or distributors in the conspiracy.

DEFENDANT AND CO-CONSPIRATORS

4. During the entire period covered by this Information, the defendant was president of a firm located in Rialto, California that is engaged in the manufacture and sale of marine products, including plastic marine pilings. .

5. Various corporations and individuals, not made defendants in this Information, participated as co-conspirators in the offense charged herein and performed acts and made statements in furtherance thereof.

TRADE AND COMMERCE

6. Plastic marine pilings are reinforced synthetic pilings, resembling telephone poles, used in commercial dock and pier construction. Plastic marine pilings are substitutes for traditional wood pilings in port and pier construction projects.

7. During the relevant period, plastic marine pilings sold by one or more of the conspirator firms, and equipment and supplies necessary to the production and distribution of plastic marine pilings, as well as payments for plastic marine pilings, traveled in interstate and foreign commerce.

8. During the relevant period, the business activities of defendant and his co-conspirators in connection with the production and sale of plastic marine pilings that are the subject of this Information were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

9. The combination and conspiracy charged in this Criminal Information was carried out, in part, within the Eastern District of Virginia within the five years preceding the filing of this Information, excluding the period during which the running of the statute of limitations was suspended pursuant to agreement with the Defendant.

(All in violation of Title 15, United States Code, Section 1).

PLEA AGREEMENT

The United States of America and Humberto Lopez, also known as Beto Lopez (”defendant”), hereby enter into the following Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (”Fed. R. Crim. P.”):

RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT

1. The defendant understands his rights:

1. to be represented by an attorney;

2. to plead not guilty to any criminal charge brought against him;

3. to have a trial by jury, at which he would be presumed not guilty of the charge and the United States would have to prove every essential element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be found guilty;

4. to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him and to subpoena witnesses in his defense at trial;

5. not to be compelled to incriminate himself;

6. to appeal his conviction, if he is found guilty; and

7. to appeal the imposition of sentence against him.

AGREEMENT TO PLEAD GUILTY
AND WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS

2. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(g) above. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant will plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, on September 10, 2008, charging the defendant with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by rigging bids and allocating customers for certain contracts to supply and install doors and hardware for construction projects in the El Paso, Texas, area, beginning in the early 1990’s, and continuing thereafter until at least May 2006, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1.

3. The defendant, pursuant to the terms of this Plea Agreement, will plead guilty to the criminal charge described in Paragraph 2 above and will make a factual admission of guilt to the Court in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, as set forth in Paragraph 4 below.

FACTUAL BASIS FOR OFFENSE CHARGED

4. Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence sufficient to prove the following facts:

1. For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the “relevant period” is that period beginning in the early 1990’s, and continuing thereafter until at least May 2006. During the relevant period, the defendant was an owner and vice president of El Paso Steel Doors and Frames, Inc. (hereinafter, “El Paso Steel Doors”). El Paso Steel Doors was an entity organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas with its principal place of business in El Paso, Texas. During the relevant period, El Paso Steel Doors was engaged in the business of supplying doors and hardware in the El Paso, Texas, area. During the relevant period, El Paso Steel Doors’s sales of doors and hardware to U. S. customers totaled at least $11 million.

2. During the relevant period, the defendant entered into and participated in an ongoing conspiracy with other persons and entities engaged in the sale and installation of doors and hardware, the primary purpose of which was to rig bids and allocate customers for certain contracts to supply and install doors and hardware for construction and renovation projects in the El Paso, Texas, area. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant engaged in conversations and attended meetings with representatives of other entities that sell and install doors and hardware. During such meetings and conversations, the co-conspirators reached agreements to rig bids and allocate customers for certain contracts to supply and install doors and hardware for construction projects in the El Paso, Texas, area. The co-conspirators also exchanged information used to prepare intentionally high and noncompetitive quotes or bids to install doors and hardware on construction and renovation projects. The co-conspirators submitted intentionally high and noncompetitive quotes or bids to install doors and hardware on construction and renovation projects, and supplied doors and hardware at collusive and noncompetitive prices and received payment therefor.

3. During the relevant period, doors and hardware sold by one or more of the conspirator firms, and equipment and supplies necessary to the distribution and installation of doors and hardware, as well as payments for doors and hardware, traveled in interstate commerce. The business activities of El Paso Steel Doors and co-conspirators in connection with the sale of doors and hardware affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate trade and commerce.

4. Acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were carried out within the Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. The conspiratorial meetings and conversations described above and attended by the defendant took place in and around El Paso in this District, and doors and hardware affected by this conspiracy were sold by one or more of the conspirators to customers in this District.

POSSIBLE MAXIMUM SENTENCE

5. The defendant understands that the statutory maximum penalty which may be imposed against him upon conviction for a violation of Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act is:

1. a term of imprisonment for ten (10) years (15 U.S.C. § 1);

2. a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of (1) $1 million, (2) twice the gross pecuniary gain the conspirators derived from the crime, or (3) twice the gross pecuniary loss caused to the victims of the crime by the conspirators (15 U.S.C. § 1; 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b) and (d)); and

3. a term of supervised release of three (3) years following any term of imprisonment. If the defendant violates any condition of supervised release, the defendant could be imprisoned for up to two (2) years [18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2) and (e)(3); and United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.," "Sentencing Guidelines," or "Guidelines") §5D1.2(a)(2)].

6. In addition, the defendant understands that:

1. pursuant to U.S.S.G. §5E1.1 or 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) or 3583(d), the Court may order him to pay restitution to the victims of the offense; and

2. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A), the Court is required to order the defendant to pay a $100.00 special assessment upon conviction for the charged crime.

SENTENCING GUIDELINES

7. The defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines in effect on the day of sentencing, along with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in determining and imposing sentence. The defendant understands that the Guidelines determinations will be made by the Court by a preponderance of the evidence standard. The defendant understands that although the Court is not ultimately bound to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range, its sentence must be reasonable based upon consideration of all relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §1B1.8, the United States agrees that self-incriminating information that the defendant provides to the United States pursuant to this Plea Agreement will not be used to increase the volume of affected commerce attributable to the defendant or in determining the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range, except to the extent provided in U.S.S.G. §1B1.8(b).

SENTENCING AGREEMENT

8. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), and to assist the Court in determining the appropriate Sentencing Guidelines range, the United States and the defendant agree that defendant’s adjusted offense level applicable to the charge described in the Indictment, prior to any departure for substantial assistance, is calculated as follows:

1. under U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(a), the defendant’s Base Offense Level is 12;

2. under U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(b)(1), the conduct involved participation in an agreement to submit noncompetitive bids, resulting in a 1-level increase;

3. under U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(b)(2)(A), the volume of commerce done by his principal in goods or services affected by the violation was calculated at $2.73 million at the time the defendant elected to cooperate with the investigation, resulting in a 2-level increase;

4. under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), the defendant has clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for his offense, resulting in a 2-level decrease, to Offense Level 13; and

5. under U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(c)(1), the applicable fine is 1-5 percent of $2.73 million, or $27,300-136,500.

9. Offense Level 13, Criminal History Category I, results in a term of imprisonment of 12-18 months. The defendant understands that the Court will order him to pay a $100 special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A) in addition to any fine imposed.

10. The defendant understands that the sentence to be imposed on him is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge. The United States cannot and does not make any promises or representations as to what sentence he will receive, and is free to recommend any specific sentence to the Court. However, the United States will inform the Probation Office and the Court of (a) this Agreement; (b) the nature and extent of the defendant’s activities with respect to this case and all other activities of the defendant which the United States deems relevant to sentencing; and (c) the nature and extent of the defendant’s cooperation with the United States. In so doing, the United States may use any information it deems relevant, including information provided by the defendant both prior and subsequent to the signing of this Agreement. The United States reserves the right to make any statement to the Court or the Probation Office concerning the nature of the criminal violation charged in the Indictment, the participation of the defendant therein, and any other facts or circumstances that it deems relevant. The United States also reserves the right to comment on or to correct any representation made by or on behalf of the defendant, and to supply any other information that the Court may require.

11. If the United States determines that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in any investigations or prosecutions, and has otherwise fully complied with all of the terms of this Plea Agreement, it will file a motion, pursuant to U. S. S. G. § 5K1.1, advising the sentencing judge of all relevant facts pertaining to the determination and requesting the Court to sentence the defendant in light of the factors set forth in U. S. S. G. § 5K1.1(a)(1)-(5). The defendant acknowledges that the decision whether he has provided substantial assistance in any investigations or prosecutions and has otherwise complied with the terms of this Plea Agreement is within the sole discretion of the United States. It is understood that, should the United States determine that the defendant has not provided substantial assistance in any investigations or prosecutions, or should the United States determine that the defendant has violated any provisions of this Plea Agreement, such a determination will release the United States from any obligation to file a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, but will not entitle the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea once it has been entered. The defendant further understands that, whether or not the United States files a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the sentence to be imposed on him remains within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge.

12. The United States and the defendant understand that the Court retains complete discretion to accept or reject either party’s sentencing recommendation. The defendant understands that, as provided in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3)(B), if the Court does not impose a sentence consistent with either party’s sentencing recommendation, he nevertheless has no right to withdraw his plea of guilty.

DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION

13. The defendant will cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the sale and installation of doors and hardware in the El Paso, Texas, area, and any other federal investigation resulting therefrom, and any litigation or other proceedings arising or resulting from any such investigation to which the United States is a party (”Federal Proceeding”). The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of the defendant shall include, but not be limited to:

1. producing all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents, and other materials, wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of the defendant, requested by attorneys and agents of the United States;

2. making himself available for interviews, not at the expense of the United States, upon the request of attorneys and agents of the United States;

3. responding fully and truthfully to all inquiries of the United States in connection with any Federal Proceeding, without falsely implicating any person or intentionally withholding any information, subject to the penalties of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503, et seq.);

4. otherwise voluntarily providing the United States with any non-privileged material or information, not requested in (a) - (c) of this paragraph, that he may have that is related to any Federal Proceeding; and

5. when called upon to do so by the United States in connection with any Federal Proceeding, testifying in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings, fully, truthfully, and under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making false statements or declarations in grand jury or court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1623), contempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 401 - 402), and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503, et seq.).

14. The defendant agrees that a complete and truthful disclosure shall be made to the United States Probation Office regarding every aspect of the defendant’s financial condition. Failure to truthfully and completely disclose all financial information as required by the Probation Officer may result in the Court’s rejection of the plea of guilty; refusal of the government to recommend to the Court a two- level departure for acceptance of responsibility; a recommendation by the government for a two-level enhancement in the guideline level for obstruction of justice; and/or prosecution for affirmative false statements or false statements by omission to a member of the judicial branch of the United States government, Title 18 United States code, Section 1001. If the government pursues prosecution, the defendant will not be free to withdraw his plea of guilty entered pursuant to this plea agreement.

15. Further, the defendant acknowledges and agrees that he may not engage in any financial transactions, including, but not limited to, the transfers of funds to and from financial accounts; making or accepting advance payments; buying or selling securities or real or personal property or filing for bankruptcy without the consent of the Court. However, the defendant may engage in routine transactions such as the necessary payment of monthly debt and expenses relating to his employment without the prior consent of the court. Violations of this condition will be considered a breach of the Plea Agreement, which may result in the same consequences as those in the preceding paragraph with the exception of prosecution.

GOVERNMENT’S AGREEMENT

16. Subject to the full, truthful, and continuing cooperation of the defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and upon the Court’s acceptance of the guilty plea called for by this Plea Agreement, the United States:

1. will not bring further criminal charges against the defendant for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement that was undertaken in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the sale and installation of doors and hardware in the El Paso, Texas, area (”Relevant Offense”). The nonprosecution terms of this paragraph do not apply to civil matters of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence; and

2. will file a motion with the Court to dismiss the charge against El Paso Steel Doors and Frames, Inc. (”the company”), without prejudice to refile it, and, if granted, the United States reserves the right to refile the charge against the company should the defendant fail to provide full, truthful or continuing cooperation. The defendant understands that the Court retains complete discretion to grant or deny the motion to dismiss the charge against El Paso Steel Doors and Frames, Inc.

17. The defendant understands that he may be subject to administrative action by federal or state agencies other than the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, based upon the conviction resulting from this Plea Agreement, and that this Plea Agreement in no way controls whatever action, if any, other agencies may take. However, the United States agrees that, if requested, it will advise the appropriate officials of any governmental agency considering such administrative action of the fact, manner, and extent of the cooperation of the defendant as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative action, if any, to take.

REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL

18. The defendant has reviewed all legal and factual aspects of this case with his attorney and is fully satisfied with his attorney’s legal representation. The defendant has thoroughly reviewed this Plea Agreement with his attorney and has received satisfactory explanations from his attorney concerning each paragraph of this Plea Agreement and alternatives available to the defendant other than entering into this Plea Agreement. After conferring with his attorney and considering all available alternatives, the defendant has made a knowing and voluntary decision to enter into this Plea Agreement.

VOLUNTARY PLEA

19. The defendant’s decision to enter into this Plea Agreement and to tender a plea of guilty is freely and voluntarily made and is not the result of force, threats, assurances, promises, or representations other than the representations contained in this Plea Agreement. The United States has made no promises or representations to the defendant as to whether the Court will accept or reject the recommendations contained within this Plea Agreement.

VIOLATION OF PLEA AGREEMENT

20. The defendant agrees that, should the United States determine in good faith, during the period that any Federal Proceeding is pending, that the defendant has failed to provide full and truthful cooperation, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, or has otherwise violated any provision of this Plea Agreement, the United States will notify the defendant or his counsel in writing by personal or overnight delivery or facsimile transmission and may also notify his counsel by telephone of its intention to void any of its obligations under this Plea Agreement (except its obligations under this paragraph), and the defendant shall be subject to prosecution for any federal crime of which the United States has knowledge including, but not limited to, the substantive offenses relating to the investigation resulting in this Plea Agreement. The defendant agrees that, in the event that the United States is released from its obligations under this Plea Agreement and brings criminal charges against the defendant for any Relevant Offense, the statute of limitations period for such offense will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of this Plea Agreement and six (6) months after the date the United States gave notice of its intent to void its obligations under this Plea Agreement.

21. The defendant understands and agrees that in any further prosecution of him resulting from the release of the United States from its obligations under this Plea Agreement based on the defendant’s violation of the Plea Agreement, any documents, statements, information, testimony, or evidence provided by him to attorneys or agents of the United States, federal grand juries, or courts, and any leads derived therefrom, may be used against him in any such further prosecution. In addition, the defendant unconditionally waives his right to challenge the use of such evidence in any such further prosecution, notwithstanding the protections of Fed. R. Evid. 410.

ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT

22. This Plea Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the United States and the defendant concerning the disposition of the criminal charge in this case. This Plea Agreement cannot be modified except in writing, signed by the United States and the defendant.

23. The undersigned attorneys for the United States have been authorized by the Attorney General of the United States to enter this Plea Agreement on behalf of the United States.

24. A facsimile signature shall be deemed an original signature for the purpose of executing this Plea Agreement. Multiple signature pages are authorized for the purpose of executing this Plea Agreement.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation announced the addition of EDWARD EUGENE HARPER to the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted Fugitives” list. HARPER is wanted for his alleged involvement in the sexual assault of two girls, ages three and eight, in Hernando, Mississippi.

On April 27, 1994, EDWARD EUGENE HARPER was indicted by the Circuit Court of DeSoto County, Mississippi, for the 17th Judicial District of Mississippi, Case Number CR94-124CD, for conspiracy to commit