Plea agreement, D'Arius Akim Jackson — No. 2:23-cr-00090 (Dkt. 122, W.D. Wash.)

Summary

A plea agreement in United States v. D'Arius Jackson, No. CR-23-090-02 JHC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, filed October 26, 2023 as Document 122. Jackson agrees to plead guilty to wire fraud as charged in Count 19 of the Indictment under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, which carries up to 30 years and a fine of up to $1,000,000. In the statement of facts, the parties agree that the defendants submitted over 125 applications, sought more than $6.8 million and obtained more than $3.3 million from COVID-19 relief programs including Emergency Rental Assistance, PPP and EIDL. The agreement states that Jackson sought at least $457,637 and obtained at least $436,667. It is dated October 26, 2023 and names Acting United States Attorney Tessa M. Gorman, Assistant United States Attorney Cindy Chang and defense attorney Thomas D. Coe.

Summary drafted by a model from the text of the original file linked on this page 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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

10
ll
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 1 of 19

FILED ENTERED The Honorable John H. Chun
eon LODGED __ RECEIVED

OCT 26 2023

AT SEATTLE
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT
py SSTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

DEPUTY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, NO. CR-23-090-02 JHC
Plaintiff, PLEA AGREEMENT

D’ ARIUS AKIM JACKSON,
Defendant.

The United States, through Acting United States Attorney Tessa M. Gorman and
Assistant United States Attorney Cindy Chang of the Western District of Washington,
and Defendant D’ Arius A. Jackson and Defendant’s attorney Thomas D. Coe enter into
the following Plea Agreement, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(c)(1)(B).

1. The Charge. Defendant, having been advised of the right to have this
matter tried before a jury, agrees to waive that right and enters a plea of guilty to Wire
Fraud, as charged in Count 19 of the Indictment, in violation of Title 18, United States

Code, Section 1343.

Plea Agreement - | UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 2 of 19

By entering a plea of guilty, Defendant hereby waives all objections to the form of
the charging document. Defendant further understands that before entering any guilty
plea, Defendant will be placed under oath. Any statement given by Defendant under oath
may be used by the United States in a prosecution for perjury or false statement.

2. Elements of the Offense. The elements of Wire Fraud, as charged in
Count 19, to which Defendant is pleading guilty are as follows:

First, the Defendant knowingly participated in, or devised, a scheme or
plan for obtaining money or property through false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises;

Second, the promises, statements, or representations were material, that is,
they had a natural tendency to influence a person to part with money or property;

Third, the Defendant acted with the intent to defraud;

Fourth: the Defendant used, or caused to be used, the wires in interstate or
foreign commerce to carry out or attempt to carry out an essential part of the
scheme; and

Fifth, the violation occurred in relation to, or involved, benefit payments
authorized, transmitted, disbursed or paid in connection with a presidentially-
declared major disaster or emergency.

3, The Penalties. Defendant understands that the statutory penalties
applicable to the offense to which Defendant is pleading guilty are as follows:

a. For the offense of Wire Fraud, as charged in Count 19: A maximum
term of imprisonment of up to 30 years, a fine of up to $1,000,000, a period of
supervision following release from prison of up to five years, and a mandatory
special assessment of $100 dollars. Ifa probationary sentence is imposed, the
probation period can be for up to five (5) years.

4. Immigration Consequences. Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty

may have consequences with respect to Defendant’s immigration status if Defendant is

Plea Agreement - 2 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
A FP WW WN

Oo CO ND

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 3 of 19

not a citizen of the United States. Under federal law, a broad range of crimes are grounds
for removal, and some offenses make removal from the United States presumptively
mandatory. Removal and other immigration consequences are the subject of a separate
proceeding, and Defendant understands that no one, including Defendant’s attorney and
the Court, can predict with certainty the effect of a guilty plea on immigration status.
Defendant nevertheless affirms that Defendant wants to plead guilty regardless of any
immigration consequences that Defendant’s guilty plea may entail, even if the
consequence is Defendant’s mandatory removal from the United States.
5. Rights Waived by Pleading Guilty. Defendant understands that by

pleading guilty, Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the following rights:

a. The right to plead not guilty and to persist in a plea of not guilty;

b. The right to a speedy and public trial before a jury of Defendant’s
peers;

c. The right to the effective assistance of counsel at trial, including, if
Defendant could not afford an attorney, the right to have the Court appoint one for
Defendant;

d. The right to be presumed innocent until guilt has been established

beyond a reasonable doubt at trial;

e. The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against Defendant
at trial;

f. The right to compel or subpoena witnesses to appear on Defendant’s
behalf at trial;

g. The right to testify or to remain silent at trial, at which trial such

silence could not be used against Defendant: and
h. The right to appeal a finding of guilt or any pretrial rulings.
6. United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands and

acknowledges that the Court must consider the sentencing range calculated under the

Plea Agreement - 3 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-THC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 4 of 19

United States Sentencing Guidelines and possible departures under the Sentencing
Guidelines together with the other factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3553(a), including: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense(s); (2) the
history and characteristics of Defendant; (3) the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of the offense(s), to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense(s); (4) the need for the sentence to afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct; (5) the need for the sentence to protect the public from further
crimes of Defendant; (6) the need to provide Defendant with educational and vocational
training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (7)
the kinds of sentences available; (8) the need to provide restitution to victims; and (9) the
need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparity among defendants involved in similar
conduct who have similar records. Accordingly, Defendant understands and
acknowledges that:

a. The Court will determine Defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range
at the time of sentencing;

b. After consideration of the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors in
18 U.S.C. 3553(a), the Court may impose any sentence authorized by law, up to the
maximum term authorized by law;

C. The Court is not bound by any recommendation regarding the
sentence to be imposed, or by any calculation or estimation of the Sentencing Guidelines
range offered by the parties or the United States Probation Department, or by any
stipulations or agreements between the parties in this Plea Agreement; and

d. Defendant may not withdraw a guilty plea solely because of the
sentence imposed by the Court.

7. Ultimate Sentence. Defendant acknowledges that no one has promised or

guaranteed what sentence the Court will impose.

Plea Agreement - 4 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
20
21
22
23
24

26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 5 of 19

8. Statement of Facts. Defendant admits Defendant is guilty of the charged
offense. Based on the discovery produced and reviewed, the parties agree on the
following facts and further agree that all of these facts constitute relevant conduct under

the United States Sentencing Guidelines:
a. Overview. From about June 2020 until February 2022, Defendants

Paradise Shaw Dreia Williams, D’arius Akim Jackson, Jahri Asad Cunningham, Tia
Janee Robinson, Rayvon Darnell Peterson, David Jesus Martinez, and others submitted
over 125 applications and fraudulently sought more than $6.8 million, and obtained more
than $3.3 million, from various federally-funded COVID-19 pandemic relief programs.
They used the funds intended to assist individuals and businesses suffering from the
economic impacts of the pandemic for personal expenses such as a Porsche car,
gambling, and other goods.

b. Defendants’ scheme targeted the following COVID-19 pandemic
relief programs: U.S. Department of Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance program
administered through Washington State grant programs and King County Eviction
Prevention and Rental Assistance Program (EPRAP); the Paycheck Protection Program
(PPP) administered by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA); the Economic
Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program administered by SBA; and federally-funded
COVID-19 unemployment benefits administered through various state workforce
agencies, including those in California, South Carolina, and Nevada.

c. Emergency Rental Assistance, EIDL, PPP funds, and CARES Act
unemployment benefits were authorized, transferred, disbursed, and paid in connection
with a nationwide emergency declared by Presidential Proclamation 9994 (effective as of
March 1, 2020) and a Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of
Washington concerning the COVID-19 pandemic that was issued on March 22, 2020.

d. Jackson participated in the scheme to defraud Emergency Rental

Assistance, PPP, and EIDL, seeking at least $457,637 and obtaining at least $436,667.

Plea Agreement - 5 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 6 of 19

e, Williams orchestrated the scheme and artifice to defraud. Williams,
Jackson, Cunningham, Robinson, and Peterson, used their own identities, including
numerous aliases and the identities of others, to submit multiple fraudulent applications
to various programs. Williams, Jackson, Robinson, and Peterson received kickback
payments for fraudulently obtained benefits. The Defendants impersonated and directed
others to impersonate landlords and tenants in communications with EPRAP staff who
processed the applications. Williams created and submitted fake bank statements and
other documents to support the fraudulent applications she and her associates submitted.
Williams, and others, also created, used, and maintained multiple email accounts,
sometimes using alias names, to perpetuate the fraudulent scheme.

f. Upon receipt of the fraudulent proceeds, the Defendants quickly
laundered the funds through cash withdrawals, wire transfers, and expensive purchases.

g. For instance, on January 21, 2022, Jackson received $39,600 in
EPRAP funds into his checking account. The same day, he withdrew $10,000 in cash,
and three days later, on January 24, 2022, he withdrew $28,000 in cash from his bank
account over three separate transactions. He made these and other cash withdrawals to
conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of the
fraudulently obtained funds and knew that these withdrawals were proceeds of unlawful
activity.

h. Fraudulent Emergency Rental Assistance. {n response to millions
of Americans facing deep rental debt, fear of evictions, and the loss of basic housing
security as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s
Emergency Rental Assistance program provided funding directly to state and local
governments to assist households that were unable to pay rent or utilities. From March
2021 through 2022, Treasury’s Emergency Rental Assistance program allocated over
$900 million to Washington State and local governments, including King County. The

Washington Department of Commerce received and administered the state’s federal

Plea Agreement - 6 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98 101
(206) 553-7970
oa) > Ww i)

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 7 of 19

funds by providing grants to county governments and non-profit organizations to support
the homeless crisis response systems in the state. In King County, the Department of
Community and Human Services distributed over $300 million in direct federal funds and
state grants to approximately 30,000 King County households through EPRAP. Non-
Profit Organization 1, which is based in Seattle, also received over $5 million in
federally-funded rental assistance grants from the Washington Department of Commerce
and distributed the funds to approximately 700 households.

i. To qualify for rental assistance, the household must have been low-
income, experiencing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and been at risk
of experiencing homelessness or currently experiencing housing instability. Tenants and
landlords could receive up to 12 months of rental assistance (nine months back or current
rent and three months advance). The administering agencies acknowledged that there
was insufficient funding to help every household who qualified, thus, the screening
criteria was intended to target those most likely to become homeless but for the

assistance.
j. At all times relevant to this case, in King County, a landlord could

initiate an application for EPRAP assistance by submitting a delinquent tenant’s
information, and the tenant and landlord could submit self-attestation forms to document
eligibility. Landlords were also required to submit W-9 forms and, upon request,
evidence of a lease or ledger. After EPRAP calculated the final assistance amount,
landlords received an EPRAP agreement by email that they were required to sign and
return via DocuSign using interstate wire transmissions. The agreement certified that the
signee was authorized to accept the emergency rental assistance payment in satisfaction
of rent owed by a tenant.

k. King County initiated payment of the EPRAP funds by using an
interstate wire to upload payment information to a bank server located outside
Washington State. EPRAP funds were disbursed to landlords via checks or ACH
payments using interstate wire transmissions.

Plea Agreement - 7 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
i) bo NO bo bo No No iw) —_ — —_ — — _ — _ —_ as

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 8 of 19

L. Between on or about August 27, 2021, and February 11, 2022, the
Defendants, using their own and others’ identities and aliases, posed as landlords and
submitted at least 79 fraudulent applications for Emergency Rental Assistance funds,
seeking over $2.9 million and obtaining over $2.79 million. At all times relevant to this
case, none of the Defendants owned property in King County, and therefore, were not
landlords for any property in King County.

m. Jackson completed and submitted at least 11 applications using the
alias “Akim Jackson” and Martinez’s name. Williams generated fake documents that
were submitted in support of the applications, including ledgers and landlord attestations.
The applications were associated with real King County addresses and fake tenant names.
In communications with EPRAP staff about the applications, Jackson and Martinez
pretended to be tenants and landlords associated with the fraudulent applications Jackson
submitted. In total, the applications sought at least $433,395 and caused King County to
pay at least $415,845 to Jackson’s and Martinez’s bank accounts. Williams, Jackson, and
Martinez shared the fraudulent proceeds.

n. As one example of this conduct, as charged in Count 19, on or about
January 12, 2022, until on or about January 20, 2022, Jackson submitted five fraudulent
EPRAP applications associated with five fake tenants using the landlord alias of “Akim
Jackson.” In communications with EPRAP staff, Jackson and Martinez impersonated the
landlord and tenants for these applications. Williams created and uploaded fake
documents to create the “Akim Jackson” landlord account and support these fraudulent
applications. The landlord account for Akim Jackson directed King County to pay the
rental assistance into Jackson’s checking account. On or about January 28, 2022, in
connection with these five EPRAP applications, King County used interstate wires
originating in Washington to pay $216,825 in Emergency Rental Assistance into
Jackson’s account.

0. Paycheck Protection Program. PPP was a COVID-19 pandemic
relief program administered by SBA that provided forgivable loans to small businesses
for job retention and certain other expenses. The PPP permitted participating third-party

Plea Agreement - 8 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
19
20
21
22
23
24

26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 9 of 19

lenders to approve and disburse SBA-backed PPP loans to cover payroll, fixed debts,
utilities, rent/mortgage, accounts payable and other bills incurred by qualifying
businesses during and resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. PPP loans were fully
guaranteed by the SBA. In the event of default, SBA will fully satisfy the lender for any
balance remaining on the loan. Further, SBA will forgive any loan up to 100 percent if
the borrower uses the funds for specified purposes.

p. To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying business, which included certain
sole proprietorships, had to submit a PPP loan application, which was signed by an
authorized representative of the business. The PPP loan application required the business
(through its authorized representative) to acknowledge the program rules and make
certain affirmative certifications to be eligible to obtain the PPP loan, including that the
business was in operation on February 15, 2020 and either had employees for whom it
paid salaries and payroll taxes or paid independent contractors. A business applying for a
PPP loan was required to provide documentation showing its payroll expenses, such as
filed federal income tax documents.

q- Individuals who operated a business under a “sole proprietorship”
business structure were also eligible for a PPP loan. To qualify for such a PPP loan,
individuals had to report and document their income and expenses from the sole
proprietorship, as typically reported to the Internal Revenue Service on a “Form 1040,
Schedule C,” for a given tax year. As with other PPP loans, this information and
supporting documentation was used to calculate the amount of money the individual was
entitled to receive under the PPP. The maximum loan amount for a sole proprietorship
with no employees was approximately $20,833.

r. At all times relevant to this case, PPP loan documents were
electronically submitted or caused to be submitted by the borrower to a third-party lender
service provider, which did not have any servers in Washington State. The borrower
signed the loan documents using DocuSign, which has servers within and outside
Washington State, and data for a single customer could reside in multiple locations. The
third-party lender service provider accessed the signed loan documents and caused those

Plea Agreement - 9 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
—

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 10 of 19

documents to be sent to a third-party lender that did not have any servers located within
Washington State. Therefore, every PPP loan document relevant to this case and initiated
online from Washington State, resulted in an interstate wire communication that
originated in Washington State and traveled to another state.

S. Once approved, the business received the PPP loan proceeds via an
electronic funds transfer from the third-party lender to a financial account under the
control of the business. The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified
items, such as payroll costs, costs related to the continuation of group health care
benefits, or mortgage interest payments. The proceeds of a PPP loan were not permitted
to be used by the borrowers to purchase consumer goods, personal property, to pay the
borrower’s personal federal income taxes, or to fund the borrower’s ordinary day-to-day
living expenses unrelated to the specified authorized expenses.

t. Between on or about April 10, 2021, and May 23, 2021, Williams,
Jackson, and others submitted at least 13 fraudulent PPP applications to lenders who then
transmitted the loan files using interstate wire transmissions, seeking a total of
approximately $253,000. In exchange for facilitating and submitting the fraudulent
applications, the individuals paid Williams a kickback upon receipt of the funds.

u. As one example of this conduct, on or about May 14, 2021, an
interstate wire originating in King County, Washington was used to transmit a fraudulent
PPP application that Williams prepared in Jackson’s identity with Jackson’s
authorization. The application claimed that Jackson was a sole proprietor of a food
delivery business that began on January 1, 2020, with a gross income of $100,000. All of
these representations were false, and Williams created and submitted a fake bank
statement in support of the application. The application directed loan proceeds to be paid
into a bank account in Jackson’s name. On or about June 14, 2021, the application was

funded for $20,832, and the proceeds were deposited into Jackson’s bank account.

V. Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. SBA also administers

the EIDL Program, which provides low-interest financing to small businesses and non-

Plea Agreement - 10 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D'Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
6

10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

25
26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 11 of 19

profit organizations in regions affected by declared disasters. In March 2020, the
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act authorized the SBA to
provide EIDLs of up to $2 million to eligible small businesses experiencing substantial
financial disruption due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act and subsequent
legislation also authorized the SBA to issue advances of up to $10,000 to small
businesses within three days of applying for an EIDL. EIDL Advances did not have to be
repaid. EIDL funds can be used for payroll expenses, sick leave, production costs, and
business obligations, such as debts, rent, and mortgage payments.

WwW. A qualifying business, which could include sole proprietorships, that
applied for an EIDL had to submit an application to the SBA and provide information
about its operations, such as the number of employees, gross revenues for the 12-month
period preceding the disaster, and cost of goods sold in the 12-month period preceding
the disaster. The applicant had to certify that all of the information in the application was
true and correct to the best of the applicant’s knowledge.

x Applicants submitted EIDL applications online directly to the SBA
for processing. SBA directly disbursed EIDL funds to an account identified by the
applicant. In all instances relevant to this case, when an applicant submitted an COVID-
19 EIDL application online, SBA received it at a server outside Washington State.
Therefore, every COVID-19 EIDL application relevant to this case and submitted online
from Washington State, resulted in an interstate wire communication that originated in
Washington State and traveled to another state.

y. Beginning no later than June 25, 2020, until at least on or about
August 17, 2021, Williams, Jackson, Cunningham, Robinson, Peterson, and others
submitted at least 35 fraudulent EIDL applications to SBA using the identities of
themselves and others, seeking a total of approximately $3.7 million and obtaining
approximately $300,000. In exchange for facilitating and submitting the fraudulent

applications, the individuals paid Williams a kickback upon receipt of the funds.

Plea Agreement ~ [1 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 12 of 19

Z. As one example of this conduct, on or about July 12, 2020, Williams
submitted a fraudulent EIDL application using Jackson’s identity with Jackson’s
authorization. The application claimed that Jackson was a sole proprietor of a hair and
nail salon, “Cut n up LLC.” The application claimed gross revenues of $6,800 for the 12
months prior to January 31, 2020, identified Jackson as the “CEO,” and claimed to have
seven employees as of January 31, 2020. All of these representations were false. The
application direct loan proceeds to be paid to Jackson’s bank account. The application
was denied without being funded because Jackson did not meet credit score requirements.

The parties agree that the Court may consider additional facts contained in the
Presentence Report (subject to standard objections by the parties) and/or that may be
presented by the United States or Defendant at the time of sentencing, and that the factual
statement contained herein is not intended to limit the facts that the parties may present to
the Court at the time of sentencing.

9. Sentencing Factors. The parties agree that the following Sentencing
Guidelines provisions apply to this case:

The following provisions apply to defendant’s conviction of Count 19:

a. A base offense level of 7, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(a)(1);

b. An increase of 12 points because the intended loss from the offense
exceeded $250,000 but was less than $550,000, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(G);

C. An increase of two points because the offense involved sophisticated
means, pursuant to USSG § 2B1.1(b)(10); and

d. An increase of two points because the offense involved benefits
authorized under a presidentially-declared major disaster or emergency, pursuant to
USSG § 2B1.1(b)(12).

The parties agree they are free to present arguments regarding the applicability of
all other provisions of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands,

however, that at the time of sentencing, the Court is free to reject these stipulated

Plea Agreement - 12 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
i) i) bo bo nN bo iw) iw) — — — —_ — — — —_ —_— —

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 13 of 19

adjustments, and is further free to apply additional downward or upward adjustments in
determining Defendant’s Sentencing Guidelines range.

10. Acceptance of Responsibility. At sentencing, i/the Court concludes
Defendant qualifies for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant
to USSG § 3E1.1(a) and Defendant’s offense level is 16 or greater, the United States will
make the motion necessary to permit the Court to decrease the total offense level by three
(3) levels pursuant to USSG §§ 3E1.1(a) and (b), because Defendant has assisted the
United States by timely notifying the United States of Defendant’s intention to plead
guilty, thereby permitting the United States to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the
Court to allocate its resources efficiently.

11. Recommendation Regarding Imprisonment. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B), the government agrees to recommend that the
appropriate term of imprisonment to be imposed by the Court at the time of sentencing is
a term of no more than the 63 months. Defendant is free to recommend any sentence.
Defendant understands that this recommendation is not binding on the Court, and the
Court may reject the recommendation of the parties and may impose any term of
imprisonment up to the statutory maximum penalty authorized by law. Defendant
further understands that Defendant cannot withdraw a guilty plea simply because of the
sentence imposed by the Court. Except as otherwise provided in this Plea Agreement,
the parties are free to present arguments regarding any other aspect of sentencing.

12. Restitution. Defendant shall make restitution to the United States
Department of the Treasury in the amount of $415,845 and the U.S. Small Business
Administration in the amount of $20,832, with credit for any amounts already paid.

a. The full amount of restitution shall be due and payable immediately
on entry of judgment and shall be paid as quickly as possible. If the Court finds that the
defendant is unable to make immediate restitution in full and sets a payment schedule as

contemplated in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(f), Defendant agrees that the Court’s schedule

Plea Agreement - 13 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
10
12
13
14

16

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 14 of 19

represents a minimum payment obligation and does not preclude the U.S. Attorney’s
Office from pursuing any other means by which to satisfy the defendant’s full and
immediately-enforceable financial obligation, including, but not limited to, by pursuing
assets that come to light only after the district court finds that the defendant is unable to
make immediate restitution.

b, Defendant agrees to disclose all assets in which Defendant has any
interest or over which Defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those
held by a spouse, nominee, or third party. Defendant agrees to cooperate fully with the
United States’ investigation identifying all property in which Defendant has an interest
and with the United States’ lawful efforts to enforce prompt payment of the financial
obligations to be imposed in connection with this prosecution. Defendant’s cooperation
obligations are: (1) before sentencing, and no more than 30 days after executing this Plea
Agreement, truthfully and completely executing a Financial Disclosure Statement
provided by the United States Attorney’s Office and signed under penalty of perjury
regarding Defendant’s and Defendant’s spouse’s financial circumstances and producing
supporting documentation, including tax returns, as requested; (2) providing updates
with any material changes in circumstances, as described in 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k), within

seven days of the event giving rise to the changed circumstances; (3) authorizing the

United States Attorney’s Office to obtain Defendant’s credit report before sentencing; (4)
providing waivers, consents or releases requested by the U.S. Attorney’s Office to access
records to verify the financial information; (5) authorizing the U.S. Attorney’s Office to
inspect and copy all financial documents and information held by the U.S. Probation
Office; (6) submitting to an interview regarding Defendant’s Financial Statement and
supporting documents before sentencing (if requested by the United States Attorney’s
Office), and fully and truthfully answering questions during such interview; and (7)

notifying the United States Attorney’s Office before transferring any interest in property

Plea Agreement - 14 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
bo bo iw) No iw) iw) bo i) — — — — = — — — — —

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 15 of 19

owned directly or indirectly by Defendant, including any interest held or owned in any
other name, including all forms of business entities and trusts.

C. The parties acknowledge that voluntary payment of restitution prior
to the adjudication of guilt is a factor the Court considers in determining whether
Defendant qualifies for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a). In
addition, in any event, the government will consider Defendant’s cooperation regarding
restitution in making its sentencing recommendation.

13. Forfeiture of Assets. The Defendant understands that the forfeiture of
property is part of the sentence that must be imposed in this case. Defendant agrees to
forfeit to the United States immediately Defendant’s right, title, and interest in any and all
property that constitutes or is derived from proceeds Defendant obtained from
commission of Wire Fraud, as charged in Count 19 of the Indictment. All such property
is forfeitable pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), by way of,
Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), and includes but is not limited to a
judgment for a sum of money in the amount of $436,677 representing the proceeds
Defendant personally obtained from his commission of the wire-fraud scheme described
above.

Defendant understands and acknowledges this forfeited sum of money is separate
and distinct from the restitution that is ordered in this case. The United States agrees,
however, that it will request the Attorney General apply any amounts it collects toward
satisfaction of this forfeited sum to the restitution that is ordered. The United States also
agrees that any amount Defendant pays toward restitution will be credited against this
forfeited sum.

Defendant agrees to fully assist the United States in the forfeiture of the above-
described property and to take whatever steps are necessary to pass clear title to the
United States, including but not limited to: surrendering title and executing any

documents necessary to effect forfeiture; assisting in bringing any assets located outside

Plea Agreement - 15 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
6

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 16 of 19

the United States within the jurisdiction of the United States; and taking whatever steps
are necessary to ensure that assets subject to forfeiture are not sold, disbursed, wasted,
hidden, or otherwise made unavailable for forfeiture. The Defendant agrees not to file a
claim to any of the above-described property in any federal forfeiture proceeding,
administrative or judicial, which may be or has been initiated. The Defendant further
agrees not to assist any party who may file a claim to this property in any federal
forfeiture proceeding.

The United States reserves its right to proceed against any remaining property not
identified in this Plea Agreement, including any property in which the Defendant has any
interest or control, if that property constitutes or is traceable to proceeds of his
commission of the wire-fraud scheme described above.

14. Abandonment of Contraband. Defendant also agrees that, if any federal
law enforcement agency seized any illegal contraband that was in Defendant’s direct or
indirect control, Defendant consents to the federal administrative disposition, official use,
and/or destruction of that contraband.

15. Non-Prosecution of Additional Offenses. As part of this Plea Agreement,
the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Washington agrees not to
prosecute Defendant for any additional offenses known to it as of the time of this Plea
Agreement based upon evidence in its possession at this time, and that arise out of the
conduct giving rise to this investigation, and moves to dismiss the remaining counts in
the Indictment at the time of sentencing. In this regard, Defendant recognizes the United
States has agreed not to prosecute all of the criminal charges the evidence establishes
were committed by Defendant solely because of the promises made by Defendant in this
Plea Agreement. Defendant agrees, however, that for purposes of preparing the
Presentence Report, the United States Attorney’s Office will provide the United States

Probation Office with evidence of all conduct committed by Defendant.

Plea Agreement - 16 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
16

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 17 of 19

Defendant agrees that any charges to be dismissed before or at the time of
sentencing were substantially justified in light of the evidence available to the United
States, were not vexatious, frivolous or taken in bad faith, and do not provide Defendant
with a basis for any future claims under the “Hyde Amendment,” Pub. L. No. 105-119
(1997).

16. Breach, Waiver, and Post-Plea Conduct. Defendant agrees that, if
Defendant breaches this Plea Agreement: (a) the United States may withdraw from this
Plea Agreement and Defendant may be prosecuted for all offenses for which the United
States has evidence; (b) Defendant will not oppose any steps taken by the United States
to nullify this Plea Agreement, including the filing of a motion to withdraw from the Plea
Agreement; and (c) Defendant waives any objection to the re-institution of any charges
that previously were dismissed or any additional charges that had not been prosecuted.

Defendant further understands that if, after the date of this Plea Agreement,
Defendant should engage in illegal conduct, or conduct that violates any conditions of
release or the conditions of confinement (examples of which include, but are not limited
to, obstruction of justice, failure to appear for a court proceeding, criminal conduct while
pending sentencing, and false statements to law enforcement agents, the Pretrial Services
Officer, Probation Officer, or Court), the United States is free under this Plea Agreement
to file additional charges against Defendant or to seek a sentence that takes such conduct
into consideration by requesting the Court to apply additional adjustments or
enhancements in its Sentencing Guidelines calculations in order to increase the applicable
advisory Guidelines range, and/or by seeking an upward departure or variance from the
calculated advisory Guidelines range. Under these circumstances, the United States is
free to seek such adjustments, enhancements, departures, and/or variances even if
otherwise precluded by the terms of the Plea Agreement.

17. Waiver of Appellate Rights and Rights to Collateral Attacks.

Defendant acknowledges that, by entering the guilty plea(s) required by this Plea

Plea Agreement - 17 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
A &. W WN

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 18 of 19

Agreement, Defendant waives all rights to appeal from Defendant’s conviction, and any
pretrial rulings of the Court, and any rulings of the Court made prior to entry of the
judgment of conviction. Defendant further agrees that, provided the Court imposes a
custodial sentence that is within or below the Sentencing Guidelines range (or the
statutory mandatory minimum, if greater than the Guidelines range) as determined by the
Court at the time of sentencing, Defendant waives to the full extent of the law:

a. Any right conferred by Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742,
to challenge, on direct appeal, the sentence imposed by the Court, including any fine,
restitution order, probation or supervised release conditions, or forfeiture order (if
applicable); and

b. Any right to bring a collateral attack against the conviction and
sentence, including any restitution order imposed, except as it may relate to the
effectiveness of legal representation.

This waiver does not preclude Defendant from bringing an appropriate motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to address the conditions of Defendant’s confinement or
the decisions of the Bureau of Prisons regarding the execution of Defendant’s sentence.

If Defendant breaches this Plea Agreement at any time by appealing or collaterally
attacking (except as to effectiveness of legal representation) the conviction or sentence in
any way, the United States may prosecute Defendant for any counts, including those with
mandatory minimum sentences, that were dismissed or not charged pursuant to this Plea
Agreement.

18. Voluntariness of Plea. Defendant agrees that Defendant has entered into
this Plea Agreement freely and voluntarily, and that no threats or promises were made to
induce Defendant to enter a plea of guilty other than the promises contained in this Plea
Agreement or set forth on the record at the change of plea hearing in this matter.

19. Statute of Limitations. In the event this Plea Agreement is not accepted

by the Court for any reason, or Defendant breaches any of the terms of this Plea

Plea Agreement - 18 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

27

Case 2:23-cr-00090-JHC Document 122 Filed 10/26/23 Page 19 of 19

Agreement, the statute of limitations shall be deemed to have been tolled from the date of
the Plea Agreement to: (1) thirty (30) days following the date of non-acceptance of the
Plea Agreement by the Court; or (2) thirty (30) days following the date on which a breach
of the Plea Agreement by Defendant is discovered by the United States Attorney’s
Office.

20. Completeness of Plea Agreement. The United States and Defendant
acknowledge that these terms constitute the entire Plea Agreement between the parties,
except as may be set forth on the record at the change of plea hearing in this matter. This
Plea Agreement binds only the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District
of Washington. It does not bind any other United States Attorney’s Office or any other
office or agency of the United States, or any state or local prosecutor.

Dated this 26th day of October, 2023.

Defendant

Attorney for Defendant

CINDY C ()
Assistant ae States Attorney

Plea Agreement - 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
United States v. D’Arius Jackson, CR23-090-JHC-02 700 STEWART STREET, SUITE 5220
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101
(206) 553-7970


File and source

File

122-plea-agreement-d-arius-akim-jackson-defendant-2.pdf

Size

4,186,406 bytes

SHA-256

09c1ff4fbd937fddea3e75c640fb3d48ff2f3cebf4597e168b40496553f65357

Our copy

122-plea-agreement-d-arius-akim-jackson-defendant-2.pdf

Original

archive.org