United States v. Edward Baker Harrington — Plea Agreement, District of Colorado (Document 25)

Summary

Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing in United States v. Edward Baker Harrington, Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00324-NYW, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, Document 25, filed March 23, 2023. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 9 of the Indictment, charging violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (money laundering), and to restitution estimated at least $1,023,005.65. It states a forfeiture money judgment of $1,012,797.95; the government contends that $40,674.23 of PPP processing fees should also be in restitution, which the defendant reserves the right to challenge. The government agrees to move to dismiss Counts 2-8 and 10-13 and to recommend a sentence at the bottom of the guidelines range.

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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

ocument 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Criminal Case No. 22-cr-00324-NYW
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

1. EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON,
a/k/a BAKER HARRINGTON,
a/k/a E. BAKER HARRINGTON,
a/k/a EDWARD BAKER HARRINGTON II,

Defendant.

PLEA AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS
RELEVANT TO SENTENCING

The United States of America, by and through Nicole C. Cassidy and Martha A. Paluch,
Assistant United States Attorneys for the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of
Colorado (the “government”), and the defendant, Edward Baker Harrington, a/k/a Baker
Harrington, E. Baker Harrington, and Edward Baker Harrington II (“Harrington” or the
“defendant”), personally and by counsel, Mary V. Butterton, submit the following Plea
Agreement pursuant to D.C.COLO.LCrR 11.1. This agreement binds only the Criminal
Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado and the defendant.

\

1. AGREEMENT

A. Defendant’s Plea of Guilty:
The defendant agrees:
(1) to plead guilty to Counts 1 and 9 of the Indictment, which charge violations of 18

USS.C. § 1343 (wire fraud) and 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (money laundering),

COURT EXHIBIT

1
-Cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 17

respectively;

(2) ‘to waive certain appellate and collateral attack rights, as explained in detail
below;

(3) to be liable for restitution to the SBA and participating lenders in the amount
estimated to be at least $1,023,005.65,! plus interest accruing through the date of
the sentencing hearing, with additional information about apportionment between
the SBA and participating lenders to be provided at the sentencing hearing; and

(4) not to contest forfeiture as more fully described below.

Mr. Harrington reserves the right to request the Court suspend payment of criminal
monetary penalties (including forfeiture and restitution) during any period of imprisonment.
The government opposes Mr. Harrington’s request to suspend payment of criminal monetary
penalties for any period of time following the entry of the Judgment.

B. The Government’s Obligations:
This agreement is made pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P.11(c)(1)(A). The government agrees

not to bring other charges against the defendant based on information currently known to the

‘As explained in detail below, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security
(“CARES”) Act authorized the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) to guarantee loans
issued under the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Under specified circumstances, the
SBA agreed that it would purchase a PPP loan from the lender and pay the loan’s outstanding
principal balance and accrued interest. The SBA has already purchased five of Harrington’s
PPP loans from the original third-party lenders.

The $1,023,005.65 restitution amount is comprised of: (1) $1,012,797.95 ‘that Harrington
obtained from his fraudulent PPP loan applications; and (2) $10,207.70 of accrued interest for
the five PPP loans purchased by the SBA.

In addition to the $1,023,005.65 described above, the government contends that the
restitution amount should also include PPP processing fees totaling $40,674.23 that the SBA
paid to the third-party lenders in connection with Harrington’s fraudulent PPP loans. The
defendant reserves the right to challenge the inclusion of these fees as part of restitution.

2
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 17

. United States Attorney’s Office, District of Colorado concerning fraud against the government
programs described below and to move to dismiss Counts 2-8 and 10-13 of the Indictment.
Should the plea of guilty be vacated on the motion of the defendant, the government may, in its
sole discretion, file an indictment with additional charges.

Provided the defendant does not engage in prohibited conduct or otherwise implicate
USSG §§ 3C1.1 and 3E1.1, cmt. n.4 between the guilty plea and sentencing in this case, the
government agrees that the defendant should receive a two-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility pursuant to USSG § 3E1.1(a) and agrees to file a motion requesting that the
defendant receive a one-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to USSG
§ 3E1.1(b).

As to sentencing, the government agrees to recommend a sentence at the bottom of the
guidelines range, as calculated by the Court.

Cc. Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal:

The defendant is aware that 18 U.S.C. § 3742 affords the right to appeal the sentence,
including the manner in which that sentence is determined. Understanding this, and in exchange
for the concessions made by the government in this agreement, the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily waives the right to appeal any matter in- connection with this prosecution, conviction,
or sentence (including the restitution order), unless it meets one of the following criteria:

r (1) _ the sentence exceeds the maximum sentence provided in the statutes of
conviction, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 & 1957;

(2) the sentence exceeds the top end of the advisory guideline range from the
Sentencing Guidelines that applies for the defendant’s criminal history (as
determined by the district court) at a total offense level of 23; or

(3) the government appeals the sentence imposed.
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 17

If the first criteria applies, the defendant may appeal only the issue of how his sentence
exceeds the statutory maxinium sentence. ‘But if one of the latter two criteria apply, the
defendant may appeal on any ground that is properly available in an appeal that follows a guilty
plea.

The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to challenge this
prosecution, conviction, or sentence (including the restitution order) in any collateral attack
(including, but not limited to, a motion brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255). This waiver provision
does not prevent-the defendant from seeking relief otherwise available in a collateral attack on
any of the following grounds:

(1) the defendant should receive the benefit of an explicitly retroactive change in the
sentencing guidelines or sentencing statute;

(2) the defendant was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel; or
(3) the defendant was prejudiced by prosecutorial misconduct.

The defendant also waives the right to appeal any sentence imposed below or within the
Guideline range upon a revocation of supervised release in this case number. The defendant
also waives the right to appeal the denial of any motion filed under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
where such’denial rests in any part upon the court’s determination that “extraordinary and .

~ compelling reasons” for a sentence reduction are lacking or that a sentence reduction is not

warranted under the factors set forth in 18.U.S.C. § 3553(a).
D. Forfeiture of Assets:

The defendant admits the forfeiture allegations. The defendant further agrees to forfeit
to the United States immediately and voluntarily any and all assets and property, or portions
thereof, subject to forfeiture, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 981(a)(1)(C),

982(a)(2), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), whether in the possession or

4
-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 17

control of the United States, the defendant, the defendant’s nominees, or elsewhere. The assets
to be forfeited specifically include but are not limited to: a money judgment in the amount of the
proceeds of the offenses of conviction, which is $1,012,797.95.* The defendant agrees and
consents to the forfeiture of these assets pursuant to any federal criminal, civil, and/or
administrative forfeiture action. The defendant further agrees to the forfeiture of any substitute
assets up to the value of any property described above pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p) and
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32.2(e).

Forfeiture of the defendant’s assets shall not be treated as satisfaction of any fine,
restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty this Court may impose upon the defendant
in addition to forfeiture, except as outlined in the paragraph below.

The United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado will recommend to the
Attorney General that any net proceeds derived from the sale of the judicially forfeited assets or
payments made towards the forfeiture money judgment be remitted or restored to eligible victims
of the offense, for which the defendant has pleaded guilty, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(e), 28
C.F.R. pt. 9, and any other applicable laws, if the legal requirements for recommendation are
met. The defendant understands that the United States Attorney’s Office only has authority to
recommend such relief and that the final decision of whether to grant relief rests solely with the
Department of Justice, which will make its decision in accordance with applicable law. The
United States will not record the forfeiture money judgment with the Clerk and Recorder. The
United States first agrees to pursue collection of any available liquid substitute assets the
defendant may acquire through the restitution process. The United States further agrees that any

payment made toward restitution shall be credited to the forfeiture money judgment.

2 No interest or lender processing fees have been included in this amount.
5
ase 1:22-cr- 4-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 17

, Il. ELEMENTS OF THE OFFENSE

A. Count 1 (Wire Fraud)
The parties agree that the elements of the wire fraud offense charged in Count 1 of the
Indictment are as follows:

A. The defendant devised a scheme to defraud;

B. The defendant acted with specific intent to defraud;

C. The defendant used, or caused another person to use, interstate or foreign
wire communications facilities for the purpose of carrying out the scheme;
and

D. The scheme employed false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises that were material.

B. Count 9 (Money Laundering)
The parties agree that the elements of the money laundering offense charged in Count 9
of the Indictment are as follows:

a. the defendant knowingly engaged or attempted to engage in a monetary :

b. the defendant knew that the transaction involved criminally derived property;

c. the property had a value greater than $10,000;

d. the property was, in fact, derived from a specified unlawful activity; and

e. the monetary transaction occurred in the United States.*

IL. STATUTORY MAXIMUM SENTENCE

The maximum penalties for a violation of Count 1 (Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1343) of the

3 Tenth Circuit Pattern Jury Instructions (Criminal Cases), 2021 Edition, § 2.57.
* Model Crim. Jury Instr. 9th Cir. 18.7 Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1957) (2022).
6

f
. Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 17

Indictment are: not more than 20 years’ imprisonment, a fine of not more than the greater of
$250,000 or twice the gain or loss from the offense, or both; not more than 3 years’ supervised
release; a $100 mandatory victim’s fund assessment fee; plus, restitution in an amount to be
determined at the time of sentencing.

The maximum penalties for a violation of Count 9 (Money Laundering, 18 U.S.C. §
1957) of the Indictment are: not more than 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of not more than the
greater of $250,000 or twice the gain or loss from the offense, or both; not more than 3 years’
supervised release; a $100 mandatory victim’s fund assessment fee; plus, restitution in an
amount to be determined at the time of sentencing.

IV. COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES

in The conviction may cause the loss of civil rights, including, but not limited to, the rights
to possess firearms, vote, hold elected office, and sit on a jury.

The factual basis for this plea is set forth below. Because the Court must, as part of its
sentencing methodology, compute the advisory guideline range for the offenses of conviction,
consider relevant conduct, and consider the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553, additional
facts that may be included below which are pertinent to ‘those considerations and computations.
To the extent the parties disagree about the facts set forth below, the stipulation of facts identifies
which facts are known to be in dispute at the time of the execution of the plea agreement.

This stipulation of facts does not preclude either party from presenting non-contradictory
additional facts which are relevant to the Court’s guideline computation, to other 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553 factors, or to the Court’s overall sentencing decision. | /

The parties stipulate that the following facts are true and correct.

7
ase 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 17

Background about the PPP Program under the CARES Act

The United States Small Business Administration (“SBA”) is an executive-branch agency
of the United States government that provides support to entrepreneurs and small businesses.

On March 27, 2020, the President of the United States signed into law the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, which provided emergency assistance,
administered by the SBA, to small business owners suffering adverse economic effects caused by
the Coronavirus (““COVID-19”) pandemic. The CARES Act established several new temporary
programs and expanded existing programs, including programs created or administered by the
SBA.

One source of funding for small businesses was the Paycheck Protection Program
(“PPP”), a program administered by the SBA that provided forgivable loans to small businesses.
The proceeds of a PPP loan could be used for certain specified items, such as payroll costs,
mortgage interest payments, and utilities. The CARES Act mandated that only businesses in
operation on February 15, 2020 were eligible for a PPP loan.

To obtain a PPP loan, a qualifying small business was required to submit a PPP loan
application, signed by an authorized representative of the business, in which the applicant
acknowledged the program rules and made certain affirmative certifications. The applicant was
also required to state the business’s: (a) average monthly payroll expenses; and (b) number of
employees. | These figures were used to calculate the loan amount that the business was eligible
to receive under the PPP. Businesses were also required to provide documentation showing
their payroll expenses.

PPP loan applications were received and processed, in the first instance, by a

participating lender. Ifa PPP loan application was approved, the participating lender funded the
loan using its own monies, but the loans were guaranteed by the SBA. Data from the
application, including information about the borrower, the total amount of the loan, and the listed
number of employees, was transmitted by the lender to the SBA in the course of processing the
loan. The SBA paid participating lenders a processing fee for each funded PPP loan.

Small businesses could request forgiveness of up to the full amount of the PPP loan by
filing a forgiveness application with the same lender. The forgiveness application required the
business to certify, among other things, that the loan was used for eligible payroll and other
business costs, and that the business had verified the eligible payroll and nonpayroll costs for
which the business requested forgiveness. The business also was required to submit
documentation to the lender verifying its payroll costs.

PPP Loans Obtained by the Defendant

From April 2020 through September 2021, Harrington knowingly and with the intent to
defraud prepared and submitted fraudulent PPP applications to SBA-approved, third-party
lenders on behalf of: Alpine Search Partners LLC, Arapaho Consulting LLC, Elk Ridge
Consulting, LLC, Spruce Lake Consulting LLC, Spruce Lake Search LLC, and Summit
Consulting Services LLC. In these PPP applications, Harrington made materially false
statements and certifications regarding, inter alia, his social security number, his criminal
history, his ownership of other businesses, as well as the businesses’ average monthly payroll
and number of employees. He also submitted fraudulent documentation, including fabricated
Internal Revenue Service documents and business income statements, to support his PPP
applications. Harrington further falsely represented that all of the PPP funds would be used to
pay eligible business expenses; in fact, Harrington intended to—and did—use the proceeds for

his personal benefit.
ase 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 17

As set forth in the chart below, the third-party lenders approved and funded 10 of these

PPP loans, resulting in $1,012,797.95 being paid out to business entities that Harrington

controlled. The SBA also paid $40;674.23 in processing fees to the third-party lenders for

underwriting and servicing these PPP loans.

Application | Loan Lender Company Legal PPP Loan PPP
Date ‘Number Name Amount Processing
5/1/2020 10442578- | Huntington Elk Ridge $20,832.00 $1,041.60
01 National Bank Consulting LLC
(formally, TCF
National Bank) ;
5/12/2020 54520374- | Western States Alpine Search, $66,441.65 $3,332.08
10 Bank LLC |
6/4/2020 78370678- | FMS Bank | Arapaho $99,755.00 $4,987.75
00 (Greeley Branch) | Consulting LLC
6/12/2020 ‘| 28649079- | High Plains Summit Consulting | $99,756.00 $4,987.80
04 Bank (Flagler Services LLC ,
Branch) .
6/30/2020 87575580- | Freedom Bank Alpine Search $99,700.00 $4,985.00
00 Partners LLC
7/17/2020 | 50569681- | Flagship Bank Spruce Lake $149,200.00 | $7,460.00
07 Minnesota Search LLC
8/6/2020 45035982- | Lakeview Bank | Spruce Lake $128,400.00 | $6,420.00
10 Consulting, LLC
8/7/2020 53264382- | Magnifi Alpine Search $149,200.00 | $7,460.00
00 Financial CU Partners LLC
(formerly,
Central
Minnesota CU)
1/19/2021 25932683- | FMS Bank Arapaho $99,756.65
07 (Greeléy Branch) | Consulting LLC
1/19/2021 18795083- | High Plains Summit Consulting | $99,756.65
08 . Bank (Flagler Services LLC
Branch)
Total $1,012,797.95 | $40,674.23

Thereafter, Harrington sought loan forgiveness for funded PPP loans by submitting

fraudulent PPP loan forgiveness applications containing false representations and certifications

regarding his businesses and his compliance with the PPP program rules, including rules related

10
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 1

to the eligible uses of PPP loan proceeds. |

Harrington understands and agrees that he has an obligation to pay restitution on the
amount of these PPP loans (including the PPP loans that ultimately received loan forgiveness),
which is currently estimated to be $1,023,005.65, plus interest accruing through the date of
sentencing.” Final interest figures, as well as information regarding the apportionment of
restitution between the SBA and third-party lenders, will be presented at the time of sentencing.
Additionally, the government contends that Harrington’s restitution amount should also include
the $40,674.23 of PPP processing fees that the SBA paid to third-party lenders for underwriting
and servicing Harrington’s PPP loans. Harrington reserves the right to argue at sentencing that
these fees should not be included within restitution. |

In addition to the ten PPP loans that were actually funded, Harrington also submitted

another five PPP loan applications for PPP loans that were not funded.

Application | Loan Number | Lender Company Legal PPP Loan Request
Date Name ~
4/8/2020 89188470-10 | ReadyCap Alpine Search $43,500.00
Lending, LLC | Partners LLC
6/30/2020 69552680-09 | MoFi Alpine Search ’ | $99,757.00
Partners LLC
1/14/2021 45035982-10 | Lakeview Bank | Spruce Lake $128,368.88

Consulting, LLC

1/18/2021 17326483-10 | Flagship Bank | Spruce Lake Search | $149,200.00
Minnesota LLC

> As explained in footnote 1, the $1,023,005.65 is comprised of the principal‘:amounts
that Harrington received in connection with his fraudulent PPP loan applications and the accrued:
interest paid by the SBA to the third-party lenders in connection with the five PPP loans that the
SBA has purchased.
~ 11
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 17

1/28/2021 70476680-10 | Freedom Bank | Alpine Search $99,756.65

Partners LLC
Total $520,582.53

The total amount of the PPP loan applications attributed to Harrington is

$1,533,380.48. - However, the parties agree that the PPP loan application submitted to ReadyCap
\

Lending, LLC on behalf of Alpine Search Partners LLC for a loan in the amount of $43,500
should not be included within the calculation of intended loss. This loan was cancelled on or
about June 4, 2020 after Harrington failed to respond to the lender’s request for additional
documentation; its reason for denying the loan is listed as “merchant
unresponsive.” Accordingly, the parties agree that Harrington walked away from this PPP Joan
application and that this PPP loan should be excluded from a loss calculation of the purposes of
sentencing. Harrington further reserves the right to argue that the appropriate measure of loss is c
actual loss and to challenge the inclusion of any other unfunded PPP loans in the calculation of
intended loss. . i \ .
Count 1:

As charged in the Indictment, Harrington agrees that on or about May 1, 2020, to further
the scheme set forth above, hé knowingly prepared and submitted a fraudulent PPP application
on behalf of Elk Ridge Consulting LLC to TCF National Bank (now Huntington National Bank)

to obtain a PPP loan in the amount of $20,832.

On June 10, 2020, the SBA in Denver, Colorado created and certified the payment file for
\ \
the PPP processing fees paid out in connection with the Elk Ridge Consulting LLC PPP loan and
transmitted it via interstate wire communications from Colorado to the U.S. Treasury processing

site located in the Kansas City Regional Operations Center in Kansas City, Missouri. After a

computer operator at the U.S. Treasury disbursing office in Kansas City, Missouri performed
12
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 17

payment operations to complete the processing of the file, an Automated Clearing House
(“ACH”) payment file was transmitted to the Federal Reserve Bank ACH processing site in New
. Jersey. The Federal Reserve Bank in New Jersey processed the payment file and sent $1,041.60
to TCF National Bank in Columbus, Ohio, thereby completing the payment to TCF National
: Bank for issuing and servicing the PPP loan.
Count 9:
Harrington agrees that on or about June 4, 2020, he knowingly prepared and submitted a
fraudulent PPP application on behalf of Arapaho Consulting LLC to FMS Bank’s Greeley,
Colorado branch. FMS Bank approved and funded this PPP loan in the amount of $99,755, and

it deposited these proceeds into FMS Bank account xxxx2592 in the name of Arapaho

|
|
|
|
Consulting LLC, which was controlled by Harrington. On or about June 9, 2020, Harrington
initiated a wire transfer of $75,000 from FMS Bank account xxxx2592 to Bank of America
account XXXXXXXX] 816 in the name of Arapaho Consulting LLC. At the time that Harrington
initiated this monetary transaction, he knew that the funds being transferred were, in fact, derived
from his submission of a fraudulent PPP application to FMS Bank on behalf of Arapaho

| Consulting LLC.

|

|

Acceptance of Responsibility

The defendant accepted responsibility for his conduct in a timely fashion soon after the

; Indictment was returned in this case.

13
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 17°

VI.__ADVISORY GUIDELINE COMPUTATION AND 3553 ADVISEMENT

The parties understand that the imposition of a sentence in this matter is governed by 18 "
U.S.C. § 3553. In determining the particular sentence to be imposed, the Court is required to
consider seven factors. One of those factors is the sentencing range computed by the Court
under advisory guidelines issued by the United States Sentencing Commission. In order to aid
the Court in this regard, the parties set forth below their estimate of the advisory guideline range
called for by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. To the extent that the parties disagree
about the guideline computations, the recitation below identifies the matters which are in dispute.
The Guideline calculation below is the good faith estimate of the parties, but it is only an
estimate. The parties understand that the government also has an independent obli gation to
assist the Court in making an accurate determination of the correct guideline range. To that end,
the government may argue that facts identified in the presentence report, or otherwise identified
during the sentencing process, affect the estimate below.

Count 1 (Wire Fraud):

A. The base guideline is § 2B1.1, with a base offense level of 7.
§ 2B1.1(a)(1).

B. A 14-level increase applies because the loss was more than $550,000 but .
less than $1,500,000. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H).

C. A 2-level increase applies because the offense involved the defendant’s
use of another person’s social security number to obtain PPP loans.

D. A 2-level increase applies because the defendant derived more than

$1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institution as a

14
nS: ase 1:22-cr-00324-NYW> Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 17

E.

result of the offense. § 2B1.1(b)(17)(A).

The adjusted offense level for Count 1 is 25.

Count 9 (Money Laundering):

A.

B.

C.

Combined Sentence:

A.

B.

The base guideline is § 2S1.1(a), with a base offense level of 25.
A 1-level increase applies because the defendant is béing convicted under
18 U.S.C. § 1957. § 2S1.1(b)(2)(A).

The adjusted offense level for Count 9 is 26.

The total adjusted offense level is 26. § 3D1.3.
The defendant should receive a 3-level downward adjustinent for timely
acceptance of responsibility. The resulting total offense level is 23.
§§ 3E1.1(a}Hb).
The parties understand that the defendant’s criminal history computation
is tentative. The criminal history category is determined by the Court
based on the defendant’s prior convictions. Based on information
currently available to the parties, it is estimated that the defendant’s
criminal history category would be III.
The career offender/criminal livelihood/armed career criminal adjustments
would not apply.
The advisory guideline range resulting from these calculations is 57-71
months. However, in order to be as accurate as possible, with the
criminal history category undetermined at this time, the offense level(s)

estimated above could conceivably result in a range from 46 months

15
-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 17

(bottom of Category I) to 115 months (top of Category VI). The
guideline rangé would not exceed, in any case, the statutory maximums _
applicable to the counts of conviction.

Pursuant to guideline § 5E1.2, assuming the estimated offense level above,
the fine range for this offense would be $20,000 to $200,000, plus
applicable interest and penalties.

Pursuant to guideline § 5D1.2, if the Court imposes a term of supervised
release, that term is at least 1 year, but not more than 3 years.

Pursuant to guideline §5E1.1(a)(1), the Court shall enter a restitution order
for the full amount of the victims? losses, which the parties agree will be at
least $1 023,005.65, plus interest accruing through the date of the
sentencing hearing. The government further contends that $40,674.23 of
PPP processing fees incurred by the SBA should be included in the
restitution order. The defendant reserves the right-to challenge the

inclusion of these fees in restitution.

The parties understand that the Court is free, upon consideration and proper application
of all 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, to impose that reasonable sentence which it deems appropriate in
the exercise of its discretion and that such sentence may be less than that called for by the
advisory guidelines (in length or form), within the advisory guideline range, or above the
advisory guideline range up to and including imprisonment for the statutory maximum term,

regardless of any computation or position of any party on any 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factor.

16
Case 1:22-cr-00324-NYW Document 25 Filed 03/23/23 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 17

Vil. ENTIRE AGREEMENT

The agreement disclosed to the Court is the entire agreement. There are no other
promises, agreements or “side agreements,” terms, conditions, understandings, or assurances,

express or implied. In entering this agreement, neither the government nor the defendant has

TON

Da Vv MARY V. BUTTERTON.
Attorney for Defendant Harrington

Date NICOLE C(@ASSIDY
MARTHA A. PALUCH
Assistant United States Attorneys


File and source

File

25-plea-agreement-as-to-edward-baker-harrington-ebuch-entered-0.pdf

Size

705,775 bytes

SHA-256

0dca19a01b2174260ec945d73f6067d3acb37f1b074d50fe342f73d3bc88b1fb

Our copy

25-plea-agreement-as-to-edward-baker-harrington-ebuch-entered-0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com