Guilty Plea Agreement, U.S. v. Anthony Weaver, Sr., No. 4:22-cr-298, Dkt. 32 (E.D. Mo.)
Summary
A Guilty Plea Agreement in United States of America v. Anthony "Tony" Weaver, Sr., No. 4:22-CR-298 SRC, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Weaver agrees to plead guilty to Counts 1 through 4 of the Indictment, admitting to knowingly violating Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and the government agrees to bring no further federal prosecution in the District over the scheme involving the St. Louis County Small Business Relief Program from May, 2020 through December, 2020. The agreed facts state that Weaver was the Administrative Assistant to a St. Louis County Councilwoman and submitted SBR grant applications for businesses of an owner called John Smith, falsely stating they had closed and laid off employees. The program awarded grants of up to $15,000 per qualifying business.
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
“Guilty Plea Agreement, U.S. v. Anthony Weaver, Sr., No. 4:22-cr-298, Dkt. 32 (E.D. Mo.).”
Original at storage.courtlistener.com. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/guilty-plea-agreement-u-s-v-anthony-weaver-sr-no-4-22-cr-298-dkt-32-e-6ad48b3174/
, SHA-256 3c34c270412577544e78587e3b9675da5e4a1f1681fce8a690e26ac12f4dab22.Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ).
)
V. ) No. 4:22-CR-298 SRC
)
ANTHONY "TONY" WEAVER, SR., )
)
)
Defendant. )
GUILTY PLEA AGREEMENT
Come now the parties and hereby agree, as follows:
1. PARTIES:
The parties are the defendant Anthony "Tony" Weaver, Sr., represented by defense
. counsel Timothy Smith, and the United States of America'(hereinafter "United States" or
"Government"), represented by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Eastern District
of Missouri and Assistant U.S. Attorney Hal Goldsmith of said Office. This agreement does not,
and is not intended to, bind any governmental office or agency other than the United States
Attorney for the E~stern District of Missouri. The Court ~s 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 1 through 4 of the Indictment, the United States
agrees that no further federal prosecution will be brought in this District relative to the
defendant;s scheme to defraud and obtain money from St. Louis County, Missouri through its
1
Small Business Relief Program by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses,
representations and promises during the period May, 2020 through December, 2020, of which
the Government is aware at this time.
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 parti_es 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 Counts 1,through 4, the defendant admits to knowingly violating Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1343, and admits there is a factual basis for the plea and further fully
understands that the elements of the crime are: -
1. The defendant voluntarily and intentionally devised and participated in a scheme to
defraud and to obtain moneys-from St. Louis County, Missouri through its Small
Business Relief Program by means of material false representations and promises;
2. The defendant did' so with intent to defraud; and,
3. The defendant used or c~1,1sed to be used an interstate wire communication in
furtherance of, or in an attempt to carry out, some essential step in, the scheme;
2
4. FACTS:
,
The parties agree that the facts in this case are as follows and that the government would
' .
prove these facts beyond a reasonable doubt if the case were to go to trial. These facts may be
)
considered as relevant conduct pursuant to Section lBl.3:
The defendant, ANTHONY "TONY" WEAVER, SR. (hereinafter referred to as
"WEAVER"), was the Administrative Assistant to "Jane Doe," a St. Louis County
Councilwoman, and, beginning during January, 2020, served as the appointed Change
Management Coordinator at the St. Louis County Justice Center. WEAVER also served as the
longtime Committeeman of the Spanish Lake Township of St. Louis County, and served on the
board of Unity PAC, a north St. Louis County political organization.
During May, 2020, St. Louis County, Missouri introduced the St. Louis County Small
Business Relief Program (hereinafter referred to as "SBR") to award grants totaling $17 .5 million
to small businesses. The SBR grants were funded through the federal relief :funds St. Louis County
received from the CARES Act. The SBR grants were intended to pr-ovide relief to small businesses
- ·-' - -- -in St, Louis Gounty,that were closed during the Stay at Home Orders, -Grant -funds could be used- -
to pay for the costs of business interruption as a result of business closing during this time and to
cover costs associated with reopening safely, including funding intprovements for businesses to
comply with social distancing guidelines. Initially, the SBR Program was to award a maximum
total of$2.5 millio11in grant~ per County Council District to business.es that needed fi11-~cial relief
the most, based upon recommendations received from the Council member of each District. Each
qualifying business was eligible to-receive up to $15,000 in SBR grant funds. Small business
3
applications and Council member recommendations Were originally due to be submitted to St.
'---.
Louis County by June 1, 2020.
An individual, (hereinafter referred to as "John Smith"), was the owner and operator of
several small businesses located in St. Louis County, including a gasoline station, a convenience
mart, a supermarket, a laundromat, and ari automobile mechanic shop.
Beginning in or about May, 2020, and continuing through in or about December, 2020,
,•
WEAVER, along with others, devised, intendedJo devise, and knowingly participated in a scheme '
to defraud and obtain money from St. Louis County, Missouri through the St. Louis County Small
Business Relief Program by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations,
and promis~s.
On or about May 6, 2020, WEAVER met with John Smith and advised John Smith about
the SBR grant program. WEAVER advised John Smith that WEAVER and Jane Doe, the Council.
member in the District where WEAVER believed John Smith's businesses were located, needed
to know the names of each of John Smith's businesses in order to ensure that those SBRI
'-----'
0
applicationswould be·approved and funded by St Louis County~ - - C - ' c-
WEAVER: "But she need to know, and I need to know who those names are when
they come up for approval then we can say yes, yes, yes." ·
WEAVER: "It's a committee of people, along with myself... a team of people
make a decision together ... but it doesn't matter, pane Doe] makes the final
decision on what happens ....1 just have to know the names of the different
companies so when it comes up I tell [Jane Doe] .... "
WEAVER and John Smith discussed that John Smith owned six businesses and, therefore, he
r
could receive $15,000 for each business through the SBR Program.
4
r
WEAVER told John Smith that he would type up the applications for- John Smith's businesses,
and advised John Smith that even though he was no longer the Administrative Assistant to Jane
Doe, he could make sure the SBR applications· were approved.
WEAVER: "I'll just bring my laptop down here and we can submit them all at
one time ... .It goes through [Jane Doe's] office. They can't really function that well
without rrie, ok? Trust me. I got it. They're going to do what I tell them to do."
I
It was a further part of the scheme that on May 7, 2020, WEAVER met with John Smith
and completed and submitted an SBR grant application for one of John Smith's businesse~, a
laundromat. In completing the SBR gr~t application, WEAVER made false representations that
the laundromat had been closed for a period of time and the business had to lay off employees as
a result of the Covid-19 pandemic when, in fact, the laundromat had not closed at all and no
employees were laid off.
WEAVER: "Did you have any business interruption during the Corona for the
laundromat?"
John Smith: "I don't think so."
WEAVER: "Well, you couldn't pay yout light bill, your gas bill, heating bill ... Did
it have-any-impact-to-your knowledge-during Corona since it started-inJanuary?" - -_.
0 0
John Smith: '_'No, we were really busy."
· WEA' VER: "You don't want to say that."
John Smith: "Ok."
WEAVER_: "You want to let them thipk you was closed, you_h~d to lay off one
of your employees .... "
WEAVER and John Smith discussed that they would split any SBR grant funds which John
Smith's businesses r9ceived.
5
John Smith: "When the money comes in: .. we split it.. .. You tell me how we're
gonna split it. Ok?"
-
WEAVER. "There's so much damn money around St. Louis County, it's crazy."
John Smith: "We need to get some of that .... "
WEAVER: "Uh huh. Everything they've got over there we need to get some
of... that's my attitude."
It was a further part of the scheme that on May 10, 2020, WEAVER met again with John
Smith and completed and submitted a false SBR grant application for another of John Smith's
busines~es, a supermarket. In completing the SBR grant application, WEAVER made false
representations that the supermarket had been closed for a period of time and the bµsiness had to
lay off employees as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic when, in fact, the supermarket had not
closed at all, and had not laid off any employ~es.
WEAVER: "Did you have to lay anybody off?" ,,.
John Smith: "No."
WEAVER: "You cut anybody's hours?'\
- '--- :John°Smitfo ~No."--- -_
WEAVER: "Yes."
John Smith: "Okay."
WEAVER: " ... was closed for business during the stay at home order, 'yes.'"
John Smith: "We were open."
WEAVER: "I know, but you were closed at some point in time."
WEAVER also discussed the need to use different email addresses for each of the SBR grant
applications in order to conceal the true ownership by John Smith.
6
WEAVER an4 John Smith again discussed the fact that they would split any SBR grant funds
obtained through submission of the applications.
John Smith: "That's my money and your money."
WEAVER: "Right."
It was a further part of the scheme that on May 14, 2020, WEAVER met again with John
Smith and completed false SB_R grant applications for two more of John Smith's businesses, a
. .
convenience store, and the supermarket which WEAVER had already made an application for,
but listed at a different address. During this meeting, WEAVER told John Smith he needed to
use a different email account on the applications because the County would be reviewing the
documents and WEAVER did not want to connect John Smith to more than one co1:llpany, which
would disqualify John Smith since an owner could only apply for one small business grant. In
completing the· SBR grant applications, WEAVER made false representations that these two
businesses had been closed for a period of time and the businesses had to lay off employees as a
result of the Covid-19 pandemic when, in fact, neither the convenience store nor the supermarket
· " · -·had been closed at all, and neither business had laid off any employees.
WEAVER: "So you were not closed .... "
John Smith: "Not even a second."
WEAVER: "Can you say you were closed a couple days?"
•
John Smith: "If that's what you need to do. Make it look stronger, go ahead.''
WEAVER advised John Smith that in the SBR application John Smith cou~d not be shown as ·
owning 25% or more of any two businesses which had submitted an SBR grant application, and
7
WEAVER discussed the need to falsely conceal John Smith's ownership in the multiple J
businesses they were submitting SBR grant applications for.
WEAVER: "Do you own 25% or more in [the supermarket]?"
John Smith: "I do. I do. 25%. I own more .... "
WEAVER: "Does it show anywhere in paperwork that you've got 25%
ownership?"
John Smith: "No."
WEAVER: "Ok. So we'll say you don't." ·
During this meeting, WEAVER discussed completing and submitting an application for John
Smith's convenience store. WEAVER did not want to use his own cellular telephone to submit
the new applidtion to St. Louis County for fear that St. Louis County officials wquld see that the
- '
application had been submitted from~WEAVE~s telephone.
WEAVER: "I don't want to do it from my phone."
John Smith: "Why?"
WEAVER: "Because I work for St. Louis County."
' I
John Smith "That's a county phone?"
WEAVER: "No. It's my personal phone."
John Smith: "They look into it?"
WEAVER: "I don't know what they cou_ld do. I don't trust St. Louis County."
1
John Smith: "Really?"
WEAVER: "Yes. They're trying to get me on something, brother. I'm too
powerful, brother .... "
8
WEAVER: "I don't want to do it from my phone because St. Louis County may
be able to see its coming from Tony Weaver's phone. You can do it from your
phone. I sent you a link." ·
WEAVER then proceeded to complete the false SBR grant application for the convenience store.
During this meeting, WEAVER and John Smith again discussed the fact that they would split any
grant funds received from the numerous false SBR grant applications.
John Smith: "We splitting."
WEAVER: "I like that."
John Smith: "We s_plitting the money."
'"'
WEAVER: "Right."
WEAVER submitted both of these false SBR grant applications the next day, on May 15, 2020.
On May 21, 2020, WEAVER and John Smith discussed the SBR grant applications
WEAVER had submitted for John Smith. WEAVER told John Doe that the County review of
- .
applications would begin Tuesday, May 27, 2020. WEAVER and John Smith further discussed .
how to split the proceeds from any SBR grant funds received in order to conceal their relationship.
WEAVER: ·"You know you can't give me-no check." 0
- - ---- -.-- ,
WEAVER: "I don't want you to do that (make a campaign contribution in John
·Smith's or John Smith's companies' names) because then that sheds the light on
you giving to [Jane Doe] or Tony .... Because we've got to turn it into the
government."
Later in the same meeting, ~AVER discussed his concern that their fraud scheme would be
discovered.
WEAVER: "I hope this place is not bugged ... that's how (former St. Louis County
Executive Steve) Stenger got caught."
9
WEAVER and John Smith met on June 29, 2020 and discussed the SBR grant applications.
WEAVER advised John Smith that, unbeknownst to him, three of John Smith's businesses which
they submitted SBR grant applications for were not in Jane Doe's District. WEAVER advised
John Smith that he can "work with" the other Council Member's Administrative Assistant to make
sure John Smith's SBR grant applications are accepted and funded. Once again, WEAVER and
John Smith again discussed that they will split any SBR grant funds John Smith receives.
John Smith: "Whenever the money comes in, we 're going to split."
'
WEAVER: "I know."
John Smith: "Right, my brother?"
WEAVER: "Right, exactly." _,
Further, on July 23, 2020, WEAVER and John Smith discussed the SBR grant applications. The
two discussed again the fact that the applications they had submitted were false in that John Smith's
) .
businesses had not closed due to Covid-19.
WEAVER: "How much did it cost to open your doors? But.you didn't close."
• WEAVER-and John Smith:met onDecember 15, 2020 and discussed the"SBR-grant: ·
0
applications. WEAVER advised John Smith that all the SBR grant funds had been paid out.
WEAVER also acknowledged that he had received a payment from one other individual.
WEAVER: "All the stimulus check money's gone, they don't have any more to
C generate."
John Smith: "Your guy [C.K.], did he give you anything?"
WEAVER: "$300."
John Smith: "That's ridiculous."
10
WEAVER: "It is. All the work, all the phone calls. All the extra work I had to do
to really help him."
Ultimately, despite WEAVER submitting the false SBR applications t~. St. Louis County,
none. of John Doe's businesses received SBR funds.
On or about the dates listed below, within the Eastern District of Missouri and elsewhere,
for the purpose of executing his scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property by means of
false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, and in attempting to do so, the defendant did
knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in and affecting interstate
commerce, certain writings, signs, and signals, via the internet, including false SBR grant
applications submitted to St. Louis County as detailed below:
COUNT DATE AMOUNT RECIPIENT OF APPLICATION
1 May 7, 2020 , $15,000.00 St. Louis County, Missouri
2 May 10, 2020 $15,000.00 St. Louis County, Missouri
3 May 15, 2020 $15,000.00 St. Louis County, Missouri
4 May 15, 2020 $15,000.00 St. Louis County, Missouri
5. STATUTORY PENALTIES:
The defendant fully understands that, as to each of Counts 1 through 4, the maximum
possible penalty provided by law for the crime to which the defendant is pleading guilty is
imprisonment of not more than 20 years, afine of not more than $250,000, or both such
imprisonment and fine.. The Court may also impose a period of supervised release of not more
than 3 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
11
History Category. The parties agree that the following are the applicable U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Total Offense Level provisions. -
a. Chapter 2 Offense Conduct: ~
(1) Base Offense Level: The parties agree that the base offense level is 7, as found in
Section 2Bl.l(a)(l).
(2) Specific Offense Characteristics: The parties agree that the following Specific
Offense Characteristics apply:
6 levels are added because the intended loss was more than $40,000, but not more than
_)
$95,000, pursuant to Section 2B 1.1 (b)(1 )(D); ·-
b. Chapter 3 Adjustments:
(1) Abuse of Position of Trust: It is the United States' position that 2 levels are
added because the defendant abused a position of public or private trust in a manner that
- '
significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense, pursuant to Section
3Bl.3. It is the Defendant's position that 2 levels should not be added, because the defense does
.cc O "- not believe that the-Defendant-violated or abused a position of public or private trust-in a-manner
0
that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.
I
(2) Acceptance of Responsibility: - The parties agree that 2 levels1should be
. . '
deducted pursuant to Section 3El. l(a) and (b), because the defendant has clearly demonstrated
' -
acceptance of responsibility. The par.ties agree that the defendant's eligibility for this d~duction
I
is based upon information presently known. If subsequent to the taking of the guilty plea the
government receives new evidence of statements or conduct by the defendant which it believes
are.,inconsistent with defendant's eligibility for this deduction, the government may present said
12
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.
(3) Other Adjustments: The parties agree that the following additional
adjustments apply: None.
c. Other Adjustments/Disputed Adjustments: None.
d. Estimated Total Offense Level: The United States estimates that the Total Offense
Level is 13. Defendant estimates that the Total Offense Level is 11. '
e. 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 R~port 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.
-~- ~
f. Effect of Parties' U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Analysis: The parties agree tliat the·
. )
Court is not bound by the Guidelines analysis agreed to herein. The parties may not ha~e
· · c.foreseen·all,applicable Ouidelines. :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
r U
· _,,the plea agreement. ·
7. WAIVER OF APPEAL AND POST-CONVICTION RIGHTS:
a. Appeal: The defendant has been fully apprised by defense c_ouns~l of the defendant's
rights concerning appeal and fully understands the right to appeal the sentence under Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3742.
. 13
(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 defendili1t's conduct falls within the scope of the statute(s).
(2) Sentencing Issues: In the event the Court accepts the plea, accepts the U.S ..
Sentencing Guidelines Total Offense Level agreed to herein, either the position taken by the
'\
United States or the position taken by the Defendant, and, after determining a Sentencing
I
I '•
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-::convictioll'proceeding; including one pursuant to Titl~ 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
rejn:~septative, to request fro_m 8lJY department or agency of the United,St~tes any recoi:ds
pertaining to the investigation or prosecution of this case, including any records thaJ may be
sought under the Freedom of Information Act, Title 5," United States Code, Section 522, or the
Privacy Act, Title 5, United States Code, SectiQn 552(a).
14
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 ~he government.
b. Civil or Administrative Actions not Barred; Effect on Other Governmental
Agencies: Nothing containecf 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
a
Gode,:Section-3583(e)(3), withoutcreditforthe time served after-release, The defendant- - ·
0
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 count for a
total of _$400, which the defend.ant agrees to pay at the time of sentencing. M9ney paid by the
defendant toward any restitution or fine imposed by the Court shall be first used to pay any
unpaid mandatory special assessment.
15
. ' '
\
e. Possibility of Detention: The defendant may be subject to immediate detention
pursuant to the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3143.
f. Fines, Restitution and Costs of Incarceration and Supervision: The Court may
impose a fine, restitutipn (in addition to any penalty authorized by law), costs of incarceration
and costs of supervision. The defendant agrees that any fine or restitution imposed by the Court
will be due and payable immediately. Pursuant to Title 18, United·States Code, Section 3663A,
an order ofrestitution is mandatory for all crimes listed in Section 3663A(c). Regardless of the
Count of conviction, the amount of mandatory restitution irp-posed shall include all amounts
allowed by Section 3663A(b) and the amount of loss agreed to by the parties, including all
relevant conduct loss. The defendant agrees to provide full restitution to all victims of all
charges in the indictment. I .
9. ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND(WAIVER OF THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS:
In pleading guilty, the defendant acknowledges, fully understands and hereby waives his
rights, including but not limited to: the right to plead notguilty to the charges; the tj.ght to be
-- - -- ~ -· • tried·by ajury in-a-public and:speedy trial;-theright to file pretrial motions, including motions to - ·
0 0
suppress or exclude evidence; the i:ight at such trial to a presumption of innocence; th~ right to
require the ·government to prove the elements of the offenses against the defendant beyond a
reasonable doubt; the right not to te$tify; the right not to present any evidence; the right to be
protected, from compelled self-incrimination; the right at trial to c~mfroii.t and cross-e)(amine
adverse witnesses; the right to testify and present evidence and the right to com,pel the attendance
1
of witnesses. The defendant further understands that by this guilty plea, the defendant expressly
waives all the rights set forth in this paragraph.
. 16
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 ai:tY 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 deportation is presumed
-mandatory, ,_ Defense counsel has advised -the def~hdant of the possible -immigration --·
0 0
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 bee_n made, dir~ctly or indirectly, by
any agent of the government, including any Department of Justice attorney, concerning any plea
to be entered in this case. In addition, the defendant states that no person has, directly or
17
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 ap.d
the guilty plea. The defendant further acknowtedges 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 defend.ant commits any crime, other than
'
minor traffic offenses, violates any condition of release that results in rev,ocation; 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 riot limited to obstruction of justice ahd denial of
acceptance of responsibility.
0
- ---
0
-
0
=·12.--NORIGHTTO-WITHDRAWGUILTY-PLEA:
Pursuant to Rule 11 (c) and (d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the defendant
\
18
understands that there will be no right to withdraw the plea entered under this agreement, except
where the Court rejects those portions of the plea agreement which deal with charges the
government agrees to dismiss or not to bring.
!Ji/.~
HAL GOLDSMI4L-
d8--~ (-lA~
Date
Defendant
. \
19
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.moed.196053.32.0.pdf
- Size
- 249,011 bytes
- SHA-256
- 3c34c270412577544e78587e3b9675da5e4a1f1681fce8a690e26ac12f4dab22
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com