Court filing — United States v. Lewis Reed (Dkt. 72, E.D. Mo.)
Summary
A Guilty Plea Agreement, Doc. #: 72, filed 08/26/22 in Case 4:22-cr-00297-SRC, United States of America v. Lewis Reed, No. 4:22-CR-297 SRC, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. Under it the defendant pleads guilty to counts Two and Four of the Indictment, and the United States agrees that no further federal prosecution will be brought in this District for the conduct set out in the Indictment. It lists the elements of Count Two under Title 18, United States Code, Section 666 and of Count Four under Section 1952(a)(3). The parties agree to facts about the St. Louis Board of Aldermen, Tax Abatement and payments from a person called John Doe to co-defendant John Collins-Muhammad.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Court filing — United States v. Lewis Reed (Dkt. 72, E.D. Mo.).”
Original at ecf.moed.uscourts.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-united-states-v-lewis-reed-dkt-72-e-d-mo-476961c924/
, SHA-256 761cf132338dba41c6ff7647462ea231c9fa8f2c4bd5d55505014714a52d2e71.Full text
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 1 of 25 PageID #:
269
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
V. )
) No. 4:22-CR-297 SRC
LEWIS REED, )
)
Defendant. )
GUILTY PLEA AGREEMENT
Come now the parties and hereby agree, as follows:
1. PARTIES:
The parties are the defendant Lewis Reed, represented by defense counsel N. Scott
Rosenblum, and the United States of America (hereinafter "United States" or "Government"),
represented by Assistant United States Attorney Hal Goldsmith and the Office of the United
States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri. This agreement does not, and is not
intended to, bind any governmental office or agency other than the United States Attorney for the
Eastern District of Missouri. The Court is neither a party to nor bound by this agreement.
2. GUILTY PLEA:
Pursuant to Rule 11 (c)(1 )(A), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in exchange for the
defendant's voluntary plea of guilty to counts Two, and Four of the Indictment, the United States
agrees that no further federal prosecution will be brought in this District relative to the
defendant's criminal conduct as set forth in the Indictment, of which the Government is aware at
this time.
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 2 of 25 PageID #:
270
In addition, the parties agree that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Total Offense Level
analysis agreed to by the parties herein is the result of negotiation and led, in part, to the guilty
plea. The parties further agree that either party may request a sentence above or below the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines range (combination of Total Offense Level and Criminal History
Category) ultimately determined by the Court pursuant to any chapter of the Guidelines and Title
18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). The parties further agree that notice of any such
request will be given no later than ten days prior to sentencing and that said notice shall specify
the legal and factual bases for the request.
3. ELEMENTS:
As to Count Two of the Indictment, the defendant admits to knowingly violating Title 18,
United States Code, Section 666(a)(l)(B), and admits there is a factual basis for the plea and
further fully understands that the elements of the crime are:
1. Defendant was an agent of the City of St. Louis, Missouri;
2. During each one-year period covered by the Indictment, defendant accepted and
agreed to accept something of value from "John Doe" in connection with
pending and proposed business and transactions with the City of St. Louis,
including, but not limited to, business and transactions related to "John Doe ' s"
Project A, and "John Doe ' s" trucking/hauling company;
3. The business and transactions related to "John Doe ' s" Project A and "John
Doe's" trucking/hauling company involved something of a value of $5,000 or
more; and,
4. The City of St. Louis, Missouri received federal program benefits in excess of
$10,000 during each of the one-year periods covered by in the Indictment.
As to Count Four of the Indictment, the defendant admits to knowingly violating Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1952(a)(3), and admits there is a factual basis for the plea and
further fully understands that the elements of the crime are:
2
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 3 of 25 PageID #:
271
1. Defendant used a cellular telephone in interstate commerce;
2. Defendant did so with the intent to promote, manage, establish, carry on, or
fac ilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any
unlawful activity , that is Acceding to Corruption and Official Misconduct in
violation of Missouri Revised Statutes, and the prohibition against receiving
private gain and gifts in violation of the St. Louis City Code of Ordinances; and,
3. Defendant knowingly committed an act or acts in performing or attempting to
perfom1 the unlawful activity.
4. FACTS:
The parties agree that the facts in this case are as fo llows and that the government would
prove these facts beyond a reasonable doubt if the case were to go to trial. These facts may be
considered as relevant conduct pursuant to Section 1B 1.3:
1. The City of St. Louis, Missouri was a governmental entity that received federal
assistance in excess of $10,000 during each of calendar years 2020, 2021, and 2022, as covered by
the Indictment.
2. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen (hereinafter referred to as the "Board of
Aldermen") was the legislative branch of St. Louis city government, and legislative authority in
the city was vested in its twenty- eight members. It was a primary function of the Board of
Aldermen to enact Ordinances through the passage of Board Bills relating to city services, the
licensing and regulating of businesses, and other municipal activities including real estate prope1iy
Tax Abatements. It was one of the functions of Aldermen to issue Letters of Support that
communicated support for real estate development projects proposed for land located in their
respective Wards, as well as real estate property Tax Abatements for those projects, which letters
were instrumental in securing governmental action or inaction relating to the proposed projects.
3
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 4 of 25 PageID #:
272
3. Section 576.020 of the Missouri Revised Statutes made it a felony crime for any
public servant, including a St. Louis City Alderman, to knowingly accept or agree to accept any
benefit, direct or indirect, in return for his official vote, opinion, recommendation, judgment,
decision, action or exercise of discretion as a public servant. Section 576.040 of the Missouri
Revised Statutes made it a misdemeanor crime for any public servant, including a St. Louis City
Alderman, in such person ' s public capacity or under color of such person ' s office or employment,
to knowingly receive any fee or reward for the execution of any official act or the performance of
a duty imposed by law or by the terms of his employment, that is not due.
4. Section 4.02.010 of the St. Louis City Code of Ordinances, which applied to St.
Louis City Aldermen, stated in part, that: "No officer or employee shall, for private gain, grant any
special consideration, treatment or advantage to any person. Nor shall any officer solicit or accept
any payment or gift of money or any other thing of value for any service performed in his official
capacity nor for the doing of any act which he is required by law to do. "
5. The St. Louis Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as " SLDC") was
the economic development agency of the City of St. Louis. The Land Clearance Redevelopment
Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LCRA"), a department of the SLDC, oversaw many aspects
of public and private real estate development in the City of St. Louis. One of the primary functions
of LCRA was to review development proposals that included requests for public assistance in the
form of Tax Abatement. The Land Reutilization Authority (hereinafter referred to as "LRA"), also
a department of the SLDC, owned and maintained vacant land and buildings in the City of St.
Louis for sale. One of the primary functions of LRA was to review purchase offers for city owned
land and to enter into agreements for the sale of city owned land.
4
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 5 of 25 PageID #:
273
6. Real estate Tax Abatement is a development tool designed to assist businesses with
renovation and new construction projects. Tax Abatement freezes the tax assessment in
improvements to property at the pre-development level. In the City of St. Louis, it was necessary
that a business owner seeking Tax Abatement for a planned development obtain the support of the
Alderman of the Ward in which the development was proposed. A Letter of Support from the
Alderman was required for both the SLDC and the Board of Aldermen to approve development
plans and Tax Abatements within a particular Alderman ' s Ward.
7. Defendant LEWIS REED , President of the St. Louis Board of Alde1men, was
publicly elected, was an employee and agent of the City of St. Louis, and was paid a salary by the
City of St. Louis. His duties included representing and assisting the residents of the City of St.
Louis, and presiding over the Board of Aldermen. He was first elected during 2007, and re-elected
during 20 11 , 2015 , and 2019. He previously served as the elected 6th Ward Alderman, having first
been elected during 1999. As President of the Board of Aldermen, he also served on the City ' s
Board of Estimate and Apportionment, along with the Mayor and the Comptroller.
8. Co-Defendant John Collins-Muhammad, Alderman for the 21 st Ward, was publicly
elected, was an employee and agent of the City of St. Louis, and was paid a salary by the City of
St. Louis. His duties included representing and assisting the residents of the 21 st Ward and the
City of St. Louis. He was first elected during 201 7, and re-elected during 2021 . In his position,
he owed the citizens of his Ward and of the City of St. Louis his honest services.
9. An individual (hereinafter refen-ed to as "John Doe") was the owner and operator
of several small businesses located in both the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. John Doe
owned vacant property in co-defendant John Collins-Muhammad ' s 21st Ward which he planned to
5
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 6 of 25 PageID #:
274
develop with construction of a gas station/convenience store. John Doe sought property Tax
Abatement for that planned development and needed John Collins-Muhammad's support and
Board of Aldermen approval for his desired property Tax Abatement.
10. On January 18, 2020, John Doe requested John Collins-Muhammad's help and
assistance in obtaining a property Tax Abatement for his planned gas station/convenience store
development in the 2l51 Ward, (hereinafter referred to as "Project A").
11. From January, 2020 through July, 2021 , John Collins-Muhammad provided John
Doe with his Aldermanic Letters of Support for a Tax Abatement for Project A, and submitted
various Board Bills which were intended to provide the Tax Abatement for Project A. However,
due to community pressure upon Collins-Muhammad not to support Project A, including a formal
recall effort by residents of the 21 st Ward, Collins-Muhammad did not carry through with obtaining
the final Board Bills necessary to provide the Tax Abatement for Project A. John Doe provided
cash bribes, campaign donations, and an automobile to Col lins-Muhammad in exchange for
Collins-Muhammad ' s continued promises and agreement to obtain the Tax Abatement for Project
A during that period of time.
12. On August 9, 2021, John Doe spoke with K.W. , a lobbyist and former campaign
manager for defendant LEWIS REED, and requested K.W.' s assistance in getting a meeting with
co-defendant John Collins-Muhammad and LEWIS REED in order to discuss John Doe' s
ongoing desire to obtain a Tax Abatement for Project A. John Doe promised to pay K.W. for
setting up the meeting.
John Doe: " ... need meeting with me, you, John, and Mr. Reed as soon as you
can ... Look, $20,000 times 10, almost quaiier million dollars, man."
K.W.: "I got you."
6
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 7 of 25 PageID #:
275
John Doe: "So, divided by month that' s $2,000 a month, that I have to pay for
property tax. Instead of doing that, we can take care of it between each other, you
know what I mean?"
K.W.: "Right .. .I got you."
13. John Doe' s partner in his trucking company, S.M., had previously introduced John
Doe to LEWIS REED on January 28, 202 1, when REED was running for Mayor of St. Louis.
On that date, REED agreed to help John Doe obtain Minority Business Enterprise ("MBE")
certification for his trucking and hauling company, and also agreed to help John Doe get contracts
for trucking and hauling on future city construction projects. In exchange for his agreement and
use of his official position to assist and support John Doe in obtaining MBE certification and
trucking contracts, John Doe gave LEWIS REED $2,000 cash.
John Doe: "Do cash rather than checks?"
REED: "Yeah, that' s fine, too . That' ll work, yeah."
Using an automatic money counter, John Doe then counted out $2,000 .
REED : "That's nice."
John Doe: "Right?"
REED: "That ... that's nice."
John Doe: "There you go my brother, that's two grand."
REED : "Oh, man, that' s perfect."
John Doe: "Yes sir, yes sir."
S.M.: "Alright, but we' re going to get our trucking thing. When you get on the
trucking thing, we going definitely ... ."
REED: " OK. "
John Doe: "Please. "
REED: "Alright, listen .... "
John Doe: Help us out, we need a few contracts."
7
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 8 of 25 PageID #:
276
REED: "Done."
John Doe: "You know, to kind of, uh, help us."
REED: "Yeah."
John Doe: "We're going to help each other for the long run. "
REED: "The long run. We're gonna' all grow together. "
Over the next several months, John Doe gave LEWIS REED campaign contributions totaling
$3,500 and four additional cash payments totaling $4,000, all in exchange for REED's continued
agreement, assistance and use of his official position to provide MBE certification and city
contracts for John Doe's trucking company. LEWIS REED continued to provide advice and
assistance to John Doe in order for John Doe' s trucking company to receive MBE certification and
contracts. While John Doe continued working to navigate the city ' s administrative processes, his
company never received MBE certification or contracts.
14. On August 9, 2021, John Doe spoke in a telephone conference with defendant
LEWIS REED and K.W. and requested LEWIS REED's assistance as President of the Board of
Aldermen in getting the Tax Abatement for Project A.
John Doe: "So I kind of like from before when I was working with him he do have
highly respect for you, you know what I mean? So I thought about bringing it over
to you."
REED: "Oh yeah, I' 11, I' 11. .. Yeah, don ' t worry about it, give me the, give [K. W.]
the address to it, I'm walking now I don ' t have a pen or pencil with me, if you give
[K.W.] the address to it then . . .I ' ll look into it and then talk to John (Collins-
Muharnmad) about it."
John Doe: "You know I really worked with him (John Collins-Muhammad) a lot,
I was always there for him, I helped him out, I gave him a nice car."
REED: "Oh, yeah. "
8
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 9 of 25 PageID #:
277
John Doe: "I was really there for him, you know. And now if I have this being
built, and I don' t have the Tax Abatement, it' s like, $20,000 a month, you know, a
year I mean."
REED: "Yup, yup, yup. Let me do that, let me, send me the address and then let's
go from there on it."
John Doe: "I will, thank you my brother, thank you for your time."
REED: "Don' t lose any sleep right now . ... We may be able, I may be able to get a
lot of it moving right away .... "
15. On August 26, 2021 , a meeting was held at LEWIS REED's campaign
headquarters in south St. Louis City. John Doe, LEWIS REED, K.W. , and John Collins-
Muhammad attended the meeting. Just before this meeting, John Collins-Muhammad and LEWIS
REED met privately and discussed John Doe ' s Project A and the promised Tax Abatement.
During the larger group meeting, the group discussed John Doe's proposed development and Tax
Abatement for Project A. LEWIS REED agreed and promised that he would provide whatever
assistance was necessary in order to obtain the Tax Abatement for John Doe ' s Project A, even
assuring John Doe that he would cause the Board of Aldermen to override any potential veto by
the Mayor of Collins-Muhammad ' s Board Bill providing the Tax Abatement. REED also
counseled John Doe to slow down the construction of Project A in order to give Collins-
Muhammad sufficient time to move the Board Bill providing the Tax Abatement through the
Board of Aldermen.
REED: "Yeah. And if she tries to do that we ' 11 override that veto. The other key
point is we do not have to have authority from the Administration to move forward
with Tax Abatement, the way he' s doing it now. So, it positions it very
well. ... When we come back on the 171\ we're gonna work with John (Collins-
Muhammad) and we ' re gonna expedite it and get it moving and get it moved out."
John Doe: "The project. I've started .... "
REED: "Can you slow it down some?"
9
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 10 of 25 PageID #:
278
Collins-Muhammad : "As long as you don ' t complete construction before you get
the Tax Abatement."
REED : "Can you slow it down a little bit?"
John Doe: "I don't want to complete it.. .. "
REED : "You don 't even want it substantially complete .... Here's the thing, for you
John (Collins-Muhammad), you don't want him to have that proj ect substantially
completed."
REED : "You need to find, just a piece of advice, find ways to slow your proj ect
down. "
John Doe: "This is gonna save me at least a quarter million dollars in the tax thing,
you know."
REED: "OK, good .... Good .. .I want to make sure this isn' t lost. Slow it down.
He's going to try and do that October thing, because if it's the first couple weeks in
November, that's sti ll a massive home run for him (John COLLNS-
MUHAMMAD). Because that is still moving some shit, to get that done ... .The
other thing is, you don't want to be substantially complete because that just makes
a heavier lift on his part."
John Doe: "Sure, I can slow down."
REED: "We' re all good."
REED: " [John Doe], you've got our support, so we' ll get things done for you."
John Doe: "Appreciate it."
REED : "You ' re welcome. If you need us for anything, let us know .... Let me
know anything, anything you need, you know we got you, we got you. "
At the end of the meeting, John Doe gave $1,000 cash to LEWIS REED in exchange for his
continued agreement, assistance, and use of his official position to provide a Tax Abatement for
Project A.
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 11 of 25 PageID #:
279
16. On September 24, 2021 , John Collins-Muhammad took legislative action and
submitted Board Bill Number 99 to the Board of A ldermen. Board Bill Number 99 sought Board
approval to blight an area within John Collins-Muhammad's Ward, including John Doe's Project
A property.
17. On October 15, 2021, Board Bill Number 99 received its second reading before the
Board of Aldermen. On October 22, 2021 , Board Bill umber 99 received Perfection from the
Board of Aldermen, and on October 29, 202 1, Board Bill Number 99 received its third reading
before the Board. The Board of Aldermen passed Board Bill Number 99 on October 29, 2021 ,
and LEWIS REED took legislative action and signed the Board Bill and submitted the Board Bill
to the Mayor for final approval and signature. Board Bill 99 was issued St. Louis City Ordinance
Number 71417 and became effective November 18, 2021.
18. On November 6, 2021, John Doe met with LEWIS REED and K.W. at LEWIS
REED's south St. Louis campaign headquarters. During the meeting, the group discussed the Tax
Abatement for Project A and passage of John Collins-Muhammad's Board Bill 99 by the Board of
Aldermen.
REED: "I talked to John, and um, ... so he said that he got everything done, you
know, worked on paperwork and stuff like that. Just tell me what needs, where you
are, what you need next, and I' 11 tell him to go do it."
John Doe: "That was really helpful , you know, you stepping in. I appreciate it a
lot. He did tell me that it passed."
REED : "Yep, we got it passed out of the Board."
John Doe: "I want to really take care of you, my brother. This is big time help for
me and I really appreciate you, you know?"
At that point in their conversation, John Doe gave LEWIS REED $1 ,000 cash in exchange for
11
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 12 of 25 PageID #:
280
his continued agreement, assistance, and use of his official position to provide a Tax Abatement
for Project A.
REED: "Oh, thank you."
John Doe: "Your help means a lot to me, you know? Without your help, I could
not get my Tax Abatement which is that really helping my business, you know?
So, just please stay on top of him until we finish this, you know?"
REED: "Absolutely ... .lfthere' s anything that you need, let me know."
19. John Collins-Muhammad submitted the redevelopment plan to the LCRA, and on
December 14, 2021 , the LCRA approved John Collins-Muhammad's redevelopment plan for the
21 st Ward, which included John Doe' s Project A. The redevelopment plan included approval for
up to 25 years of tax abatement (10 years of 100% tax abatement followed by 15 years of tax
abatement based on 50% of the assessed value of the incremental improvements).
20. On December 18, 2021 , at the request of LEWIS REED, John Doe met with
REED at his campaign headquarters. LEWIS REED explained to John Doe that residents of John
Collins-Muhammad's Ward were attempting to recall him as Alderman by gathering signatures on
a petition.
REED: "After he passed that Bill, yours, a bunch of people ... "
John Doe: " ... thanks to you."
REED: "Oh, you're welcome."
REED : "So, people in the community got pissed, and they put a recall in on
[Collins-Muhammad] .... So, his election really isn't until 2023. But what they're
saying is that he needs to be removed from office right now because of that
Bill ... .This is a bunch of bullshit. .. for whatever reason they don't like your project
or whatever. .. .I know that we're going to defeat ' em. We ' re going to defeat 'em."
REED also discussed the redrawing of the Aldermanic Districts and the upcoming reduction from
28 to 14 Wards scheduled for a March, 2023 city-wide election, which REED thought would
12
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 13 of 25 PageID #:
281
benefit John Doe, as Collins-Muhammad ' s Ward would be expanded significantly. REED
explained to John Doe that for the March, 2023 election, he was going to run a "unified
Campaign . .. .It'll be my election and whoever else I'm supporting across the 14 Wards ."
REED: "Right now we have a majority of the Board. So of the 28 members we
can deliver 20 votes, right? But we can't override a veto yet. So, if we get to the
point where we can automatically override a veto, then it doesn't matter who 's
sitting in the Mayor' s Office or anything. So, of the 14 seats that are up, we need
to control 10, we ' d like to control 10 of them ... .If we do that, we control the City
at that point."
REED told John Doe that to achieve the desired election results, he was going to work to collect
One Million Dollars in campaign funds , and he asked John Doe to provide $20,000.
John Doe: "I brought some (cash) with me today. What do you think for today?
How much?"
REED: "If you can do five ($5 ,000) today, or something like that, that would be a
huge help. "
John Doe: "I got you. I got you. But I was really trying to get with you now, I've
got somebody who was working on the Tax Abatement named [Z.W.]"
REED: " [Z.W.]? Oh, hold on a second. Let' s have a break between this
conversation and that conversation. So that they ' re not. . .legally I can't put them
together in one meeting. So, let' s finish this one, and then ... talk about that. "
John Doe: "OK. Me, I don't know too much, you know, the legal stuff and all that.
And I care less about it, you know what I mean?
REED: "Oh, I know. "
John Doe: "What I' m trying to do, to be honest, is to get my project together, you
know?"
REED: "Oh, yeah, yeah. "
REED: "So, the blighting Bill passed, so now he wants to just do ... "
John Doe: " .. . the Tax Abatement, you know what I mean?"
REED: "Got you, got you. "
13
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 14 of 25 PageID #:
282
REED: "So, what I'll do, we'll grab that other Bill and move it. Let me look at
that original Bill though, let me look at the original Bill.. .. Let me find, I'll find
out. And then, if you want to, if you want me to talk to [Z.W.] directly, I will."
John Doe: "Sure, please, please."
REED: "That's uncustomary for me. Normally I would never do that, but for you,
brother, I'll do that, I'll call and have a direct conversation .... We go back in
session, January 14 we come back in session. So, if we introduce (the Tax
Abatement Bill) the 141\ I'm going to write this schedule down for you."
REED then wrote out a schedule for introduction and passage of the Tax Abatement Board Bill
for John Doe 's Project A. As REED gave John Doe the written schedule, John Doe gave REED
$4,000 cash in exchange for his continued agreement, assistance, and use of his official position
to provide a Tax Abatement for Project A.
REED: "Thanks, man."
John Doe: "Any time, my brother. I appreciate you a lot, because, you know, you
helped me big time.
REED: "That will be the schedule (for the Tax Abatement Board Bill)."
John Doe: "Here's four ($4,000), OK?"
REED: "Thank you. "
John Doe: "But please, my brother, push on (with the Tax Abatement Board Bill)."
REED: "Oh, absolutely. Absolutely."
21. On January 10, 2022, John Doe spoke with K.W. about the promised Tax
Abatement for Project A. K.W. advised John Doe that he had spoken with LEWIS REED who
assured K.W. that the Board Bill for John Doe' s Project A Tax Abatement was going to move
forward in the Board of Aldermen, and that the project was a priority for REED.
K.W.: "[LEWIS REED] is on top ofit. ' Tell [John Doe] I got him, we know what
we got to do and he' ll be a priority.' So, that was his words, that' s what he told
me."
14
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 15 of 25 PageID #:
283
K.W.: "I told [LEWIS REED] , I said, ' if [John Doe]'s going to be able to help
you with your project (campaign funds) , you ' ve got to help him with his project
(Project A Tax Abatement).' He said, ' got it, got it. ... "'
22. On January 14, 2022, as LEWIS REED and John Collins-Muhammad had
promised, Collins-Muhammad took legislative action and introduced Board Bill number 152 to
the Board of Aldermen to provide a Tax Abatement for John Doe ' s Project A. The Bill was
referred to co-defendant Jeffrey Boyd ' s HUDZ Committee for further action and review. On
February 22, 2022, Board Bill number 152 was heard in the HUDZ Committee, approved, and sent
back to the Board of Aldermen for further review. On February 25, 2022, Board Bill number 152
had its second reading before the Board of Aldermen. On March 4, 2022, Board Bill number 152
was read again before the Board of Aldermen and perfected. On March 11 , 2022, Board Bill
number 152 was passed by the Board of Aldermen. LEWIS REED took legislative action and
signed the Board Bill and submitted the Board Bill to the Mayor for final approval and signature.
Board Bill 152 was issued St. Louis City Ordinance Number 71476 and became effective April
30, 2022.
23. On March 17, 2022, LEWIS REED met with John Doe at REED's campaign
headquarters. John Doe gave $3 ,000 cash to REED in exchange for his continued agreement,
assistance, and use of his official position to provide a Tax Abatement for Project A.
John Doe: "John (Collins-Muhammad) has just told me, you know, that everything
went well, that you signed it (Board Bill 152), you know?"
REED : "Yep, yep. "
John Doe: "And I really appreciate that. That was a great .. . "
REED : "You' re welcome. "
15
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 16 of 25 PageID #:
284
John Doe: "So, I was kind of worried a little bit about, being a little late. But
thanks to you, thanks to John, things came to be well. "
REED : "Perfect, perfect. And if you've got any other ones going, let us know
right away, so we can help."
John Doe: "I don't want to count it over to you, that's about three grand. I really
appreciate you my brother."
REED : "Oh man, thank you. Oh, thanks man, I appreciate you. "
John Doe: "Thanks to you. Thanks to you."
REED: "I appreciate you."
John Doe: "No problem."
REED: " I appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you. And let me know if you need
anything. "
24. None of the cash payments received by LEWIS REED from John Doe and
referenced above and in the Indictment were reported by REED in his reporting to the Missouri
Ethics Commission. Similarly, none of the cash payments received by LEWIS REED from John
Doe were deposited into a bank account.
25. In his communications with John Doe and St. Louis City employees, as referenced
above and in the Indictment, LEWIS REED used his cellular telephone to conduct conversations,
and to send text messages and email .
26. The business and transactions related to Project A, as referenced above and in the
Indictment, involved something of a value of $5,000 or more.
27. The parties agree that calculating the potential benefit to be received by John Doe
relative to Project A, and any City trucking/hauling contracts, is not possible and, therefore, for
purposes of applying U.S.S.G. Section 2Cl. l (b)(2), the parties agree that loss should be calculated
based upon the value of anything received by defendant LEWIS REED.
16
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 17 of 25 PageID #:
285
28. Further, Defendant, LEWIS REED, admits, acknowledges as true, and accepts
responsibility for all of the acts and conduct set forth in paragraphs 11 through 55 of the Indictment.
5. STATUTORY PENALTIES:
The defendant fully understands that the maximum possible penalties provided by law for
the crimes to which the defendant is pleading guilty are:
As to Count Two of the Indictment, imprisonment of not more than 10 years, a fine of not
more than $250,000, or both such imprisonment and fine. As to Count Four of the Indictment,
imprisonment of not more than 5 years, a fine of not more than $250,000, or both such
imprisonment and fine . As to each of the above-referenced Counts, there is also a mandatory
$100 Special Assessment and the Court may also impose a period of supervised release of not
more than three years .
6. U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES (2021 MANUAL):
The defendant understands that this offense is affected by the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
and the actual sentencing range is determined by both the Total Offense Level and the Criminal
History Category. The parties agree that the following are the applicable U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Total Offense Level provisions.
Counts Two, and Four of the Indictment:
a. Chapter 2 Offense Conduct:
(1) Base Offense Level: The parties agree that the base offense level is 14, as found in
Section 2C 1.1 (a)(l ), as defendant was a public official.
(2) Specific Offense Characteristics: The parties agree that the fo llowing Specific
Offense Characteristics apply:
17
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 18 of 25 PageID #:
286
It is the Government's position that Two levels are added because the offense involved
more than one bribe, pursuant to Section 2C 1.1 (b )(1 ). Defendant reserves the right to argue at
the time of sentencing that this enhancement does not apply.
It is the Government's position that Four levels are added because the value received by
defendant was more than $15,000 but not more than 40,000, pursuant to Sections 2C l.l(b)(2)
and 2B 1.1 (b )(1 )(C).
The parties agree that Four levels are added because the offense involved an elected
public official, pursuant to Section 2C 1.1 (b )(3).
b. Chapter 3 Adjustments:
(1) Acceptance of Responsibility: The parties agree that three levels should be
deducted pursuant to Section 3El.l(a) and (b), because the defendant has clearly demonstrated
acceptance of responsibility and timely notified the government of the defendant's intention to
plead guilty. The parties agree that the defendant's eligibility for this deduction is based upon
information presently known. If subsequent to the taking of the gui lty plea the government
receives new evidence of statements or conduct by the defendant which it believes are
inconsistent with defendant's eligibility for this deduction, the government may present said
evidence to the court, and argue that the defendant should not receive all or part of the deduction
pursuant to Section 3E 1.1, without violating the plea agreement.
Other Adjustments: The parties agree that the following additional adjustments apply:
None.
18
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 19 of 25 PageID #:
287
Estimated Total Offense Level: The Government estimates that the Total Offense
Level as to each of Counts Two and Four is 21. Defendant reserves the right to argue that the
Total Offense Level as to each of Counts Two and Four is less than 21.
Criminal History: The determination of the defendant's Criminal History Category shall
be left to the Court. Either party may challenge, before and at sentencing, the finding of the
Presentence Report as to the defendant's criminal history and the applicable category. The
defendant's criminal history is known to the defendant and is substantially available in the
Pretrial Services Report.
Effect of Parties' U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Analysis: The parties agree that the
Court is not bound by the Guidelines analysis agreed to herein. The parties may not have
foreseen all applicable Guidelines. The Court may, in its discretion, apply or not apply any
Guideline despite the agreement herein and the parties shall not be permitted to withdraw from
the plea agreement.
7. WAIVER OF APPEAL AND POST-CONVICTION RIGHTS:
a. Appeal: The defendant has been fully apprised by defense counsel of the defendant's
rights concerning appeal and fully understands the right to appeal the sentence under Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3742.
(1) Non-Sentencing Issues: The parties waive all rights to appeal all non-
jurisdictional, non-sentencing issues, including, but not limited to, any issues relating to pretrial
motions, discovery, the guilty plea, the constitutionality of the statute(s) to which defendant is
pleading guilty and whether defendant' s conduct falls within the scope of the statute(s).
19
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 20 of 25 PageID #:
288
(2) Sentencing Issues: In the event the Court accepts the plea, accepts the U.S .
Sentencing Guidelines Total Offense Level agreed to herein, and, after determining a Sentencing
Guidelines range, sentences the defendant within or below that range, then, as part of this
agreement, the defendant hereby waives all rights to appeal all sentencing issues other than
Criminal History, but only if it affects the Base Offense Level or Criminal History Category.
Similarly, the Government hereby waives all rights to appeal all sentencing issues other than
Criminal History, provided the Court accepts the plea, the agreed Total Offense Level and
sentences the defendant within or above that range.
b. Habeas Corpus: The defendant agrees to waive all rights to contest the conviction or
sentence in any post-conviction proceeding, including one pursuant to Title 28, United States
Code, Section 2255, except for claims of prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of
counsel.
c. Right to Records: The defendant waives all rights, whether asserted directly or by a
representative, to request from any department or agency of the United States any records
pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including any records that may be
sought under the Freedom oflnformation Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section 522, or the
Privacy Act, Title 5, United States Code, Section 552(a).
8. OTHER:
a. Disclosures Required by the United States Probation Office: The defendant agrees
to truthfully complete and sign forms as required by the United States Probation Office prior to
sentencing and consents to the release of these forms and any supporting documentation by the
United States Probation Office to the government.
20
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 21 of 25 PageID #:
289
b. Civil or Administrative Actions not Barred; Effect on Other Governmental
Agencies: Nothing contained herein limits the rights and authority of the United States to take
any civil, tax, immigration/deportation or administrative action against the defendant.
c. Supervised Release: Pursuant to any supervised release term, the Court will impose
standard conditions upon the defendant and may impose special conditions related to the crime
defendant committed. These conditions will be restrictions on the defendant to which the
defendant will be required to adhere. Violation of the conditions of supervised release resulting
in revocation may require the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment equal to the length of
the term of supervised release, but not greater than the term set forth in Title 18, United States
Code, Section 3583(e)(3), without credit for the time served after release. The defendant
understands that parole has been abolished
d. Mandatory Special Assessment: Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section
3013 , the Court is required to impose a mandatory special assessment of $100 per felony count
for a total of $200, which the defendant agrees to pay at the time of sentencing. Money paid by
the defendant toward any restitution or fine imposed by the Court shall be first used to pay any
unpaid mandatory special assessment.
e. Possibility of Detention: The defendant may be subject to immediate detention
pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3143 .
f. Fines, Restitution and Costs of Incarceration and Supervision: The Court may
impose a fine, restitution (in addition to any penalty authorized by law), costs of incarceration
and costs of supervision. The defendant agrees that any fine or restitution imposed by the Court
will be due and payable immediately. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3663A,
21
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 22 of 25 PageID #:
290
an order ofrestitution is mandatory for all crimes listed in Section 3663A(c). Regardless of the
Count of conviction, the amount of mandatory restitution imposed shall include all amounts
allowed by Section 3663A(b) and the amount ofloss agreed to by the parties, including all
relevant conduct loss. The defendant agrees to provide full restitution to all victims of all
charges in the indictment.
g. Forfeiture: The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives any right, title, and
interest in all items seized by law enforcement officials during the course of their investigation,
whether or not they are subject to forfeiture, and agrees not to contest the vesting of title of such
items in the United States. The defendant agrees to abandon his interest in all seized items and
further agrees that said items may be disposed of or destroyed by law enforcement officials in
any manner without further notice. By abandoning these items, the defendant waives any future
rights to receive additional notice, a valuation of the items, or the opportunity to submit a claim
to contest the disposition or destruction of the items that may exist under any policies or
procedures of the seizing agency.
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND WAIYER OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS:
In pleading guilty, the defendant acknowledges, fully understands and hereby waives his
rights, including but not limited to: the right to plead not guilty to the charges; the right to be
tried by a jury in a public and speedy trial; the right to file pretrial motions, including motions to
suppress or exclude evidence; the right at such trial to a presumption of innocence; the right to
require the government to prove the elements of the offenses against the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt; the right not to testify ; the right not to present any evidence; the right to be
protected from compelled self-incrimination; the right at trial to confront and cross-examine
22
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 23 of 25 PageID #:
291
adverse witnesses; the right to testify and present evidence and the right to compel the attendance
of witnesses. The defendant further understands that by this guilty plea, the defendant expressly
waives all the rights set forth in this paragraph.
The defendant fully understands that the defendant has the right to be represented by
counsel, and if necessary, to have the Court appoint counsel at trial and at every other stage of
the proceeding. The defendant's counsel has explained these rights and the consequences of the
waiver of these rights. The defendant fully understands that, as a result of the guilty plea, no trial
will, in fact, occur and that the only action remaining to be taken in this case is the imposition of
the sentence.
The defendant is fully satisfied with the representation received from defense counsel.
The defendant has reviewed the government's evidence and discussed the government's case and
all possible defenses and defense witnesses with defense counsel. Defense counsel has
completely and satisfactorily explored all areas which the defendant has requested relative to the
government's case and any defenses.
The guilty plea could impact defendant's immigration status or result in deportation. In
particular, if any crime to which defendant is pleading guilty is an "aggravated felony" as defined
by Title 8, United States Code, Section l 101(a)(43), removal or depo1iation is presumed
mandatory. Defense counsel has advised the defendant of the possible immigration
consequences, including deportation, resulting from the plea.
10. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF THE GUILTY PLEA AND PLEA AGREEMENT:
This document constitutes the entire agreement between the defendant and the
government, and no other promises or inducements have been made, directly or indirectly, by
23
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 24 of 25 PageID #:
292
any agent of the government, including any Department of Justice attorney, concerning any plea
to be entered in this case. In addition, the defendant states that no person has, directly or
indirectly, threatened or coerced the defendant to do or refrain from doing anything in
connection with any aspect of this case, including entering a plea of guilty.
The defendant acknowledges having voluntarily entered into both the plea agreement and
the guilty plea. The defendant further acknowledges that this guilty plea is made of the
defendant's own free will and that the defendant is, in fact, guilty.
11. CONSEQUENCES OF POST-PLEA MISCONDUCT:
After pleading guilty and before sentencing, if defendant commits any crime, other than
minor traffic offenses, violates any condition of release that results in revocation, violates any
term of this guilty plea agreement, intentionally provides misleading, incomplete or untruthful
information to the U.S. Probation Office or fails to appear for sentencing, the United States, at its
option, may be released from its obligations under this agreement. The Government may also, in
its discretion, proceed with this agreement and may advocate for any sentencing position
supported by the facts , including but not limited to obstruction of justice and denial of
acceptance of responsibility.
12. NO RIGHT TO WITHDRAW GUILTY PLEA:
Pursuant to Rule 11 (c) and (d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant
understands that there will be no right to withdraw the plea entered under this agreement, except
24
Case: 4:22-cr-00297-SRC Doc. #: 72 Filed: 08/26/22 Page: 25 of 25 PageID #:
293
where the Court rejects those portions of the plea agreement which deal with charges the
government agrees to dismiss or not to bring.
HALGO~
Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
25
File and source
- File
- 72-guilty-plea-agreement-by-usa-lewis-reed.pdf
- Size
- 706,736 bytes
- SHA-256
- 761cf132338dba41c6ff7647462ea231c9fa8f2c4bd5d55505014714a52d2e71
- Original
- PACER (login required)