PLEA Agreement as to Carlos Smith — USA v. Smith (Dkt. 45)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · No. 1:20-cr-00922 · Doc. 45 · 2022-06-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 
EASTERN DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
CARLOS SMITH 
No. 20 CR 922 
Judge Manish S. Shah  
PLEA AGREEMENT    
1.
This Plea Agreement between the United States Attorney for the
Northern District of Illinois, JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR., and defendant CARLOS 
SMITH, and his attorney, DENA M. SINGER, is made pursuant to Rule 11 of 
the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and is governed in part by Rule 11(c)(1)(A), 
as more fully set forth below. The parties to this Agreement have agreed upon the 
following: 
Charges in This Case 
2.
The indictment in this case charges defendant with wire fraud, in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 (Counts 1-2), making a false 
statement to a financial institution, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 
Section 1014 (Count 3), and money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States 
Code, Section 1957 (Count 4). 
3.
Defendant has read the charges against him contained in the
indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to him by his attorney. 
4.
Defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crimes with
which he has been charged. 
FILED
JUNE 22, 2022
Honorable Manish S. Shah
United States District Court
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:105

 
 
2 
Charges to Which Defendant Is Pleading Guilty    
5. 
By this Plea Agreement, defendant agrees to enter a voluntary plea of 
guilty to the following counts of the indictment: Count One, which charges defendant 
with wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and Count 
Four, which charges defendant with money laundering, in violation of Title 18, 
United States Code, Section 1957.   
Factual Basis    
 
6. 
Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges 
contained in Counts One and Four of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant 
admits the following facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable 
doubt and establish a basis for forfeiture of the property described elsewhere in this 
Plea Agreement: 
a. 
With respect to Count One of the indictment:    
 
Beginning in or around June 2020, and continuing until in or around October 
2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant 
CARLOS SMITH knowingly devised, intended to devise, and participated in a scheme 
to defraud, and to obtain money and property from government relief programs by 
means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, 
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. 
More specifically, CARLOS SMITH engaged in a scheme to fraudulently 
submit applications for hundreds of thousands of dollars in loans under government 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:106

 
 
3 
programs that were established under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act in order to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of 
Americans who were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 
pandemic. SMITH submitted loan applications for funds under the Paycheck 
Protection Program and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program for his company, 
CLS 
Financial 
Services, 
Inc., 
that 
contained 
false 
statements 
and 
misrepresentations, and concealed material facts related to CLS Financial Services, 
Inc., and SMITH’s prior criminal record. Based on the false statements, 
misrepresentations, and concealed material facts in the applications, SMITH caused 
Bank A and the Small Business Administration (SBA) to issue hundreds of thousands 
of dollars in loans to CLS Financial Services, Inc. 
The Economic Impact Disaster Loan (EIDL) 
 
To further the scheme to defraud, on or about April 2, 2020, SMITH applied 
for an EIDL from the SBA. SMITH represented himself as the CEO and 100% owner 
of CLS Financial Services, Inc. SMITH made several misrepresentations on the EIDL 
loan application, including that, for the 12 months prior to the disaster, CLS 
Financial Services, Inc. had two employees, gross revenue of $1,826,000, and cost of 
goods of $860,000, to make it falsely appear that CLS Financial Services, Inc. had 
employees, revenue, and cost of goods during that time period. SMITH knew at the 
time that CLS Financial Services, Inc. had no employees, revenue, or cost of goods in 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:107

 
 
4 
the 12 months prior to the disaster. SMITH also requested an EIDL Advance in this 
application, which was calculated based on the applicant’s number of employees.  
 
After SMITH learned that the EIDL loan to CLS Financial Services, Inc. had 
been approved on June 1, 2020, SMITH opened a business checking account at Bank 
B in order to receive the EIDL funds. SMITH was the only signatory on the account.  
 
On June 8, 2020, SMITH caused the SBA to disburse an EIDL of $149,900 into 
the business account he opened and controlled at Bank B. On June 12, 2020, SMITH 
caused the SBA to disburse an EIDL Advance of $2,000 into the business account he 
opened and controlled at Bank B. SMITH knew at the time that neither he nor CLS 
Financial Services, Inc. was entitled to the EIDL funds or the EIDL Advance funds. 
The Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Loan 
 
To further the scheme to defraud, on or about July 27, 2020, SMITH, in his  
capacity as authorized representative of CLS Financial Services, Inc., applied for a 
PPP loan in the amount of $270,000 from Bank A. SMITH represented himself as the 
CEO and 100% owner of CLS Financial Services, Inc. SMITH made several 
misrepresentations on the PPP loan application to Bank A, including that the PPP 
loan was necessary to support the ongoing operations of the business; the PPP loan 
would be used to retain workers and maintain payroll; and CLS Financial Services, 
Inc. had 61 employees and an average monthly payroll of $108,000. SMITH knew 
that CLS Financial Services, Inc. had no ongoing operations, employees, or payroll, 
and that CLS Financial Services, Inc. would not use the PPP funds for these expenses. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:108

 
 
5 
SMITH further fraudulently represented on the PPP loan application that, within 
the last five years, SMITH had not been convicted of a felony, pleaded guilty to a 
felony, or been placed on any form of parole or probation. SMITH knew at that time 
that he had pleaded guilty to two felony offenses in October 2016; he was sentenced 
to a term of imprisonment as a result of those convictions in January 2017; and he 
was on supervised release for that felony offense at the time he submitted the PPP 
loan application in July 2020.  
 
Additionally, SMITH falsified tax forms and attached them to the PPP loan 
application to make it falsely appear that CLS Financial Services, Inc. had paid 
employee wages and withheld federal income taxes from the employees’ wages in 
2019 and 2020. Several of the tax forms purported to be manually signed by a 
representative of Company A, an Electronic Return Originator. SMITH falsified the 
Company A representative signatures. SMITH knew at the time that CLS Financial 
Services, Inc. had no employees or payroll in 2019 or 2020, and that the attached tax 
forms were falsified. 
As charged in Count One, in order to execute his wire fraud scheme, on or about 
July 27, 2020, SMITH transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate 
commerce certain writings, signs, signals, and sounds, namely an internet 
transmission of the PPP loan application for CLS Financial Services, Inc. to Bank A. 
SMITH was located in Illinois at the time he transmitted the PPP loan application to 
Bank A. SMITH acknowledges that when he transmitted the PPP loan application, 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:109

 
 
6 
it was processed through Bank A servers located outside of Illinois, causing an 
interstate wire transmission. 
On September 23, 2020, SMITH caused Bank A to disburse a PPP loan of 
$270,000 into a bank account that SMITH maintained at Bank A in the name of CLS 
Financial Services, Inc., and of which SMITH was the only signatory. SMITH knew 
at the time that neither he nor CLS Financial Services, Inc. was entitled to the PPP 
loan funds.  
b. 
With respect to Count Four of the indictment:    
 
On or about October 6, 2020, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern 
Division, and elsewhere, SMITH knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction, 
namely, the deposit of check number 5009 into an account at Credit Union A, drawn 
from Bank B and made payable to Carlos Smith, in the amount of $30,000, which was 
in and affecting commerce and involving criminally derived property of a value 
greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from a specified unlawful 
activity, namely wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, 
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957(a). 
 
More specifically, on or about April 2, 2020, SMITH, in his capacity as 
authorized representative of CLS Financial Services, Inc., applied for an Economic 
Impact Disaster Loan from the SBA. On that application, SMITH knowingly made 
fraudulent misrepresentations, including misrepresentations about CLS Financial 
Services Inc.’s gross revenue, cost of goods, and employees. Based on the 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:110

 
 
7 
misrepresentations in the application, on or about June 8, 2020, SMITH caused to be 
transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce certain 
writings, signs, signals, and sounds, namely, an interstate wire transmission of 
approximately $149,900 from the SBA Finance Center, located in Colorado, to the 
CLS Financial Services Inc. account at Bank B, which funds represented the proceeds 
of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan to CLS Financial Services, Inc. 
 
On or about October 6, 2020, SMITH caused check number 5009, made payable 
to Carlos Smith in the amount of $30,000, to be drafted from his CLS Financial 
Services Inc. account at Bank B. SMITH was the sole signatory on the Bank B account 
and SMITH signed check number 5009. Also on October 6, 2020, SMITH 
electronically deposited check number 5009 into a checking account at Credit Union 
A in the name of Carlos Smith. SMITH was the sole signatory on the Credit Union A 
account. SMITH knew that the $30,000 that he drew from Bank B in check number 
5009 and deposited into Credit Union A was from the Economic Injury Disaster Loan 
he had fraudulently obtained on behalf of CLS Financial Services, Inc. 
Maximum Statutory Penalties 
 
7. 
Defendant understands that the charges to which he is pleading guilty 
carry the following statutory penalties:    
a. 
Count One carries a maximum sentence of 20 years’ 
imprisonment. Count One also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the gross 
gain or gross loss resulting from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant further 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:111

 
 
8 
understands that with respect to Count One the judge also may impose a term of 
supervised release of not more than three years.     
b. 
Count Four carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ 
imprisonment. Count Four also carries a maximum fine of $250,000, or twice the 
gross gain or gross loss resulting from that offense, whichever is greater. Defendant 
further understands that with respect to Count Four, the judge also may impose a 
term of supervised release of not more than three years.    
c. 
Defendant further understands that the Court must order 
restitution to the victims of the offense in an amount determined by the Court.    
d. 
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013, defendant 
will be assessed $100 on each count to which he has pled guilty, in addition to any 
other penalty or restitution imposed.    
e. 
Therefore, under the counts to which defendant is pleading guilty, 
the total maximum sentence is 30 years’ imprisonment. In addition, defendant is 
subject to a total maximum fine of $500,000, or twice the gross gain or gross loss 
resulting from the offenses of conviction, whichever is greater, a period of supervised 
release, and special assessments totaling $200, in addition to any restitution ordered 
by the Court.   
Sentencing Guidelines Calculations    
8. 
Defendant understands that in determining a sentence, the Court is 
obligated to calculate the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, and to consider 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:112

 
 
9 
that range, possible departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and other 
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), which include: (i) the nature and 
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (ii) 
the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote 
respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate 
deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the 
defendant, and provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, 
medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (iii) the 
kinds of sentences available; (iv) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities 
among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar 
conduct; and (v) the need to provide restitution to any victim of the offense. 
9. 
For purposes of calculating the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties agree 
on the following points:    
a. 
Applicable Guidelines. The Sentencing Guidelines to be 
considered in this case are those in effect at the time of sentencing. The following 
statements regarding the calculation of the Sentencing Guidelines are based on the 
Guidelines Manual currently in effect, namely the November 2021 Guidelines 
Manual. 
b. 
Offense Level Calculations. 
Count One 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:113

 
 
10 
i. 
The base offense level is 7, pursuant to Guideline 
§ 2B1.1(a)(1). 
ii. 
Pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G), the offense level is 
increased by 12 because the loss was approximately $421,900, which is more than 
$250,000 but less than $550,000.  
Count Four 
iii. 
The base offense level is 19, pursuant to Guideline 
§ 2S1.1(a)(1). 
iv. 
Pursuant to Guideline § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A), the offense level is 
increased by 1 because the defendant is pleading guilty to, and will be convicted of, 
an offense under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957. 
Grouping 
v. 
Counts 1 and 4 are grouped pursuant to Guideline 
§ 3D1.2(d). The offense level for the group is 20.  
Acceptance of Responsibility 
vi. 
Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and 
affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. If the 
government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and 
if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of 
Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and 
the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:114

 
 
11 
satisfy any fine or restitution that may be imposed in this case, a two-level reduction 
in the offense level is appropriate.    
vii. 
In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely 
notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting 
the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its 
resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the Court 
determines the offense level to be 16 or greater prior to determining that defendant 
is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the government 
will move for an additional one-level reduction in the offense level.   
c. 
Criminal History Category. With regard to determining 
defendant’s criminal history points and criminal history category, based on the facts 
now known to the government and stipulated below, defendant’s criminal history 
points equal 5 and defendant’s criminal history category is III:    
i. 
On or about May 5, 2008, defendant was sentenced to two 
years’ probation as a result of his conviction for committing a deceptive practice in 
the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Pursuant to Guideline § 4A1.2(e), 
defendant receives zero criminal history points for this offense.  
ii. 
On or about January 4, 2009, defendant was sentenced to 
one year and six months’ probation as a result of his conviction for driving under the 
influence of alcohol in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. Pursuant to 
Guideline § 4A1.2(e), defendant receives zero criminal history points for this offense. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:115

 
 
12 
iii. 
On or about January 19, 2017, defendant was sentenced to 
60 months’ imprisonment as a result of his convictions for theft of government funds 
and aggravated identity theft in the United States District Court for the Northern 
District of Illinois, case number 15 CR 211. Pursuant to Guideline § 4A1.1(a), 
defendant receives three criminal history points for this offense. 
iv. 
Pursuant to Guideline § 4A1.1(d), defendant receives an 
additional two criminal history points for committing the instant offense while on 
supervised release for the conviction described in subsection (c)(iii) above. 
d. 
Anticipated Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range. 
Therefore, based on the facts now known to the government, the anticipated offense 
level is 17 which, when combined with the anticipated criminal history category of 
III, results in an anticipated advisory sentencing guidelines range of 30 to 37 months’ 
imprisonment, in addition to any supervised release, fine, and restitution the Court 
may impose.    
e. 
Defendant and his attorney and the government acknowledge 
that the above guidelines calculations are preliminary in nature, and are non-binding 
predictions upon which neither party is entitled to rely. Defendant understands that 
further review of the facts or applicable legal principles may lead the government to 
conclude that different or additional guidelines provisions apply in this case. 
Defendant understands that the Probation Office will conduct its own investigation 
and that the Court ultimately determines the facts and law relevant to sentencing, 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:116

 
 
13 
and that the Court’s determinations govern the final guideline calculation. 
Accordingly, the validity of this Agreement is not contingent upon the probation 
officer’s or the Court’s concurrence with the above calculations, and defendant shall 
not have a right to withdraw his plea on the basis of the Court’s rejection of these 
calculations. 
10. 
Both parties expressly acknowledge that this Agreement is not governed 
by Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(B), and that errors in applying or interpreting any of the 
sentencing guidelines may be corrected by either party prior to sentencing. The 
parties may correct these errors either by stipulation or by a statement to the 
Probation Office or the Court, setting forth the disagreement regarding the applicable 
provisions of the guidelines. The validity of this Agreement will not be affected by 
such corrections, and defendant shall not have a right to withdraw his plea, nor the 
government the right to vacate this Agreement, on the basis of such corrections.    
Agreements Relating to Sentencing 
 
11. 
Each party is free to recommend whatever sentence it deems 
appropriate.  
12. 
It is understood by the parties that the sentencing judge is neither a 
party to nor bound by this Agreement and may impose a sentence up to the maximum 
penalties as set forth above. Defendant further acknowledges that if the Court does 
not accept the sentencing recommendation of the parties, defendant will have no right 
to withdraw his guilty plea.   
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:117

 
 
14 
13. 
Regarding restitution, defendant acknowledges that the total amount of 
restitution owed to the U.S. Small Business Administration is $151,900, and the total 
amount of restitution owed to Bank A is $270,000, minus any credit for funds repaid 
prior to sentencing, and that pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3663A, 
the Court must order defendant to make full restitution in the amount outstanding 
at the time of sentencing.   
14. 
Restitution shall be due immediately, and paid pursuant to a schedule 
to be set by the Court at sentencing. Defendant acknowledges that pursuant to Title 
18, United States Code, Section 3664(k), he is required to notify the Court and the 
United States Attorney=s Office of any material change in economic circumstances 
that might affect his ability to pay restitution.   
15. 
Defendant agrees to pay the special assessment of $200 at the time of 
sentencing with a cashier’s check or money order payable to the Clerk of the U.S. 
District Court.   
16. 
Defendant agrees that the United States may enforce collection of any 
fine or restitution imposed in this case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, 
Sections 3572, 3613, and 3664(m), notwithstanding any payment schedule set by the 
Court.   
17. 
After sentence has been imposed on the counts to which defendant 
pleads guilty as agreed herein, the government will move to dismiss the remaining 
counts of the indictment and the forfeiture allegation.  
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:118

 
 
15 
Forfeiture    
18. 
Defendant acknowledges that administrative forfeiture proceedings 
were commenced against certain property, including seized funds from CLS Financial 
Services, Inc.’s account at Bank A in the amount of approximately $268,937.66. By 
signing this plea agreement, defendant acknowledges that he had notice of the 
administrative forfeiture proceeding, relinquishes any right, title and interest he may 
have had in this property, withdraws any previously filed claims, and understands 
that an administrative decree of forfeiture has been entered, thereby extinguishing 
any claim he may have had in the seized property. 
19. 
Defendant understands that forfeiture shall not be treated as 
satisfaction of any fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty the 
Court may impose upon defendant. In this case, however, the United States 
Attorney’s Office will recommend to the Attorney General that any net proceeds 
derived from any forfeited assets be remitted or restored to eligible victims of the 
offense pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(e), Title 28, Code of 
Federal Regulations, Part 9, and other applicable law.    
Acknowledgments and Waivers Regarding Plea of Guilty 
Nature of Agreement 
20. 
This Agreement is entirely voluntary and represents the entire 
agreement between the United States Attorney and defendant regarding defendant’s 
criminal liability in case 20 CR 922. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:119

 
 
16 
21. 
This Agreement concerns criminal liability only. Except as expressly set 
forth in this Agreement, nothing herein shall constitute a limitation, waiver, or 
release by the United States or any of its agencies of any administrative or judicial 
civil claim, demand, or cause of action it may have against defendant or any other 
person or entity. The obligations of this Agreement are limited to the United States 
Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Illinois and cannot bind any other 
federal, state, or local prosecuting, administrative, or regulatory authorities, except 
as expressly set forth in this Agreement.   
Waiver of Rights    
22. 
Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he surrenders certain 
rights, including the following: 
a. 
Trial rights. Defendant has the right to persist in a plea of not 
guilty to the charges against him, and if he does, he would have the right to a public 
and speedy trial. 
i. 
The trial could be either a jury trial or a trial by the judge 
sitting without a jury. However, in order that the trial be conducted by the judge 
sitting without a jury, defendant, the government, and the judge all must agree that 
the trial be conducted by the judge without a jury. 
ii. 
If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be composed of 
twelve citizens from the district, selected at random. Defendant and his attorney 
would participate in choosing the jury by requesting that the Court remove 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:120

 
 
17 
prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other disqualification is shown, or 
by removing prospective jurors without cause by exercising peremptory challenges. 
iii. 
If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would be instructed that 
defendant is presumed innocent, that the government has the burden of proving 
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the jury could not convict him 
unless, after hearing all the evidence, it was persuaded of his guilt beyond a 
reasonable doubt and that it was to consider each count of the indictment separately. 
The jury would have to agree unanimously as to each count before it could return a 
verdict of guilty or not guilty as to that count. 
iv. 
If the trial is held by the judge without a jury, the judge 
would find the facts and determine, after hearing all the evidence, and considering 
each count separately, whether or not the judge was persuaded that the government 
had established defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 
v. 
At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the government 
would be required to present its witnesses and other evidence against defendant. 
Defendant would be able to confront those government witnesses and his attorney 
would be able to cross-examine them. 
vi. 
At a trial, defendant could present witnesses and other 
evidence in his own behalf. If the witnesses for defendant would not appear 
voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the 
Court. A defendant is not required to present any evidence. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:121

 
 
18 
vii. 
At a trial, defendant would have a privilege against self-
incrimination so that he could decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be 
drawn from his refusal to testify. If defendant desired to do so, he could testify in his 
own behalf.  
b. 
Appellate rights. Defendant further understands he is waiving 
all appellate issues that might have been available if he had exercised his right to 
trial, and may only appeal the validity of this plea of guilty and the sentence imposed. 
Defendant understands that any appeal must be filed within 14 calendar days of the 
entry of the judgment of conviction.  
23. 
Defendant understands that by pleading guilty he is waiving all the 
rights set forth in the prior paragraphs, with the exception of the appellate rights 
specifically preserved above. Defendant’s attorney has explained those rights to him, 
and the consequences of his waiver of those rights.     
Presentence Investigation Report/Post-Sentence Supervision    
24. 
Defendant understands that the United States Attorney’s Office in its 
submission to the Probation Office as part of the Pre-Sentence Report and at 
sentencing shall fully apprise the District Court and the Probation Office of the 
nature, scope, and extent of defendant’s conduct regarding the charges against him, 
and related matters. The government will make known all matters in aggravation 
and mitigation relevant to sentencing. 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 18 of 21 PageID #:122

 
 
19 
25. 
Defendant agrees to truthfully and completely execute a Financial 
Statement (with supporting documentation) prior to sentencing, to be provided to and 
shared among the Court, the Probation Office, and the United States Attorney’s 
Office regarding all details of his financial circumstances, including his recent income 
tax returns as specified by the probation officer. Defendant understands that 
providing false or incomplete information, or refusing to provide this information, 
may be used as a basis for denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility 
pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1 and enhancement of his sentence for obstruction of 
justice under Guideline § 3C1.1, and may be prosecuted as a violation of Title 18, 
United States Code, Section 1001 or as a contempt of the Court. 
26. 
For the purpose of monitoring defendant’s compliance with his 
obligations to pay a fine and restitution during any term of supervised release or 
probation to which defendant is sentenced, defendant further consents to the 
disclosure by the IRS to the Probation Office and the United States Attorney’s Office 
of defendant’s individual income tax returns (together with extensions, 
correspondence, and other tax information) filed subsequent to defendant’s 
sentencing, to and including the final year of any period of supervised release or 
probation to which defendant is sentenced. Defendant also agrees that a certified copy 
of this Agreement shall be sufficient evidence of defendant=s request to the IRS to 
disclose the returns and return information, as provided for in Title 26, United States 
Code, Section 6103(b).    
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 19 of 21 PageID #:123

 
 
20 
Other Terms    
27. 
Defendant agrees to cooperate with the United States Attorney’s Office 
in collecting any unpaid fine and restitution for which defendant is liable, including 
providing financial statements and supporting records as requested by the United 
States Attorney’s Office.   
28. 
Defendant understands that, if convicted, a defendant who is not a 
United States citizen may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and 
denied admission to the United States in the future.   
Conclusion 
 
29. 
Defendant understands that this Agreement will be filed with the Court, 
will become a matter of public record, and may be disclosed to any person. 
30. 
Defendant understands that his compliance with each part of this 
Agreement extends throughout the period of his sentence, and failure to abide by any 
term of the Agreement is a violation of the Agreement. Defendant further 
understands that in the event he violates this Agreement, the government, at its 
option, may move to vacate the Agreement, rendering it null and void, and thereafter 
prosecute defendant not subject to any of the limits set forth in this Agreement, or 
may move to resentence defendant or require defendant’s specific performance of this 
Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that in the event that the Court 
permits defendant to withdraw from this Agreement, or defendant breaches any of 
its terms and the government elects to void the Agreement and prosecute defendant, 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 20 of 21 PageID #:124

any prosecutions that are not time-barred by the applicable statute of limitations on 
the date of the signing of this Agreement may be commenced against defendant in 
accordance with this paragraph, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of 
limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of such 
prosecutions. 
31.
Should the judge refuse to accept defendant's plea of guilty, this
Agreement shall become null and void and neither party will be bound to it. 
32.
Defendant and his attorney acknowledge that no threats, promises, or
representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth 
in this Agreement, to cause defendant to plead guilty. 
33.
Defendant acknowledges that he has read this Agreement and carefully
reviewed each prnvision with his attorney. Defendant further acknowledges that he 
understands and voluntarily accepts each and every term and condition of this 
Agreement. 
h/1s/;2c ?' -?_ 
AGRE ED THIS DATE: ___ ....:...,_____;r
__;_r __ 
JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. 
United States Attorney 
L. HEIDI 11ANSCHRECK
MEGAN DONOHUE
Assistant U.S. Attorneys
21 
Attorney 
Case: 1:20-cr-00922 Document #: 45 Filed: 06/30/22 Page 21 of 21 PageID #:125

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.394355.45.0.pdf

Size

288,553 bytes

SHA-256

a8318f36674b08a295a2b292f0e9179d9b89982687d5ae348216c7b8a90dc555

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.394355.45.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)