Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THEODOROS N. HALLAS, Defendant. : : : : : : :

CRIMINAL NO.: 11-299 (EGS)

GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR SECTION 5K1.1 DOWNWARD DEPARTURE AND MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING The United States of America, by and through its attorney, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, hereby submits this motion for downward departure pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG or Guidelines) and memorandum in aid of sentencing concerning the defendant, Theodoros N. Hallas (Hallas). The Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) calculated the defendants total offense level under the Guidelines as a 19 (30-37 months). See PSR at p. 10, 46. The government agrees with the PSR that the defendants total offense level under the Guidelines is 19. Although the defendant retained the right as part of the plea agreement to argue for a total offense level under the Guidelines of 17 (24-30 months), the government understands from discussions with the defendants counsel that the defendant agrees the total offense level should be 19 (30-37 months).1 SUMMARY OF THE GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION The government submits that a sentence at an offense level 19 (pre-departure) is reasonable in light of the seriousness of the offense, the need to specifically deter the defendant, and the need

On September 6, 2012, the Court granted the parties consent motion to extend the time for filing the parties memoranda of law in aid of sentencing. As stated in the consent motion, the parties requested the additional time to attempt to narrow the issues at sentencing. As a result of the additional time, the parties were able to agree on the total offense level.

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 2 of 17

to afford adequate general deterrence. The defendant engaged in a scheme to falsify past performance references to bolster the qualifications of both Nova Datacom, LLC (Nova Datacom), the defendants former employer, and MED Trends, Inc. (MED Trends), the employer of his former colleague, Rajesh Malik (Malik). The false references corrupted the government contracting process and enabled Nova Datacom and MED Trends to take government contracts away from qualified 8(a) small disadvantaged businesses. Although Nova Datacom and MED Trends performed the contracts that they fraudulently obtained, the false past performance references were just one play out of a playbook used by both criminal enterprises masquerading as legitimate federal contractors to corruptly game the federal procurement process. Since being confronted with his criminal conduct in December 2010, however, the defendant has made some amends for his criminal conduct. Although the defendants cooperation got off to a shaky start, it ended up being highly effective. In December 2010, the defendant became the first individual to cooperate in the investigation of MED Trends, which had begun in mid-2009. The defendant interviewed with law enforcement personnel and identified contracts fraudulently obtained by MED Trends through false past performance references. His cooperation included covert recordings of Malik, the former Executive Vice President of MED Trends, and led to Maliks indictment.2

In September 2011, a grand jury in the District of Columbia returned a four-count Indictment against Malik, charging him with conspiracy to commit false statements, wire fraud, and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371, false statements, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001, wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1343, and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1341. See United States v. Rajesh Kumar Malik, 11-cr-0268 (filed Sept. 12, 2011). Malik is believed to be living in India. -2-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 3 of 17

During his initial efforts to cooperate against Malik, it became clear that Hallas had used false references to grow Nova Datacoms government contracting business. Once confronted with that information, Hallas began to cooperate against others at Nova Datacom, including Alex Cho (Cho), Nova Datacoms Chief Technology Officer. The defendants cooperation included covert recordings of Cho. As a result of that cooperation, Cho subsequently divulged information to the government that led to the investigation and prosecution of an historically large bribery, kickback, and bid steering scheme.3 Based on Hallass cooperation, the government recommends a five-level downward departure under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines, which results in a total offense level of 14 (15-21 months). The government specifically recommends a sentence of 15 months imprisonment and three years of supervised release. FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 13, 2011, the defendant pleaded guilty to a one-count Information, which charged conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. In the Statement of Offense, which the defendant signed as part of his plea agreement, the parties agreed that from November 1, 2007 through December 30, 2010, the defendant was the Executive Vice President for Operations of Nova Datacom. Nova Datacom was a provider of information assurance and security services to federal agencies and commercial companies. Nova Datacom maintained its corporate headquarters in Chantilly, Virginia.

On September 20, 2011, Cho pleaded guilty to a two-count Information, which charged conspiracy to commit bribery, money laundering, and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 (Count One), and bribery of a public official, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 201 (Count Two). See United States v. Young N. Cho, a/k/a Alex N. Cho, 11-cr-0276 (EGS). Chos sentencing is scheduled for December 4, 2012. -3-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 4 of 17

The criminal activity that the defendant chose to engage in began with his association with Malik. Hallas met Malik in the 1990s when they shared an office while working together for a short period of time at an information technology company. After Hallas and Malik left the company, they remained in contact with each other. Malik went on to become the Executive Vice President of MED Trends. MED Trends was a provider of information technology equipment and services to federal agencies. MED Trends submitted written responses to solicitations from federal agencies to provide services and equipment. As part of those responses, MED Trends provided past performance references and evaluations from corporate entities that purportedly had contractual relationships with MED Trends. Hallas agreed to provide Malik with false past performance references and evaluations to burnish the qualifications of MED Trends to perform federal contracts. Hallas agreed to allow Malik to represent falsely to federal agencies that Hallass employers, including eventually Nova Datacom, had contractual relationships with MED Trends. Malik arranged for Hallas to provide false information to federal agencies in the event the agencies contacted Hallas to verify the false information provided to the agencies by Malik on behalf of MED Trends. This fraudulent activity allowed Malik to grow the federal contracting business for MED Trends.4

As part of the Statement of Offense, Hallas agreed that in November 2009, as directed by Malik, Hallas emailed to Malik a false past performance evaluation for MED Trends addressed to the United States Department of Labor in Washington, D.C. The evaluation falsely represented that MED Trends had provided Excellent and Good services to Nova Datacom as part of a six-year, $5,384,734.20 contract. Hallas and Malik knew that MED Trends had provided no such services to Nova Datacom. Based, in part, on that false past performance reference, MED Trends won the solicitation from the Department of Labor in 2010 for a contract valued potentially, with all option years, of over $20 million. -4-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 5 of 17

Upon joining Nova Datacom in November 2007, Hallas employed a similar strategy of using Malik and others to provide false past performance references to burnish the qualifications of Nova Datacom to perform federal contracts.5 Malik agreed to allow Hallas to represent falsely to federal agencies that MED Trends had contractual relationships with Nova Datacom. Hallas and other agents and employees of Nova Datacom arranged for the Nova Datacom references to provide false information to federal agencies in the event the agencies contacted the references to verify the information provided by the references to the agencies. This fraudulent activity allowed Hallas to grow the federal contracting business for Nova Datacom, including by giving Nova Datacom access to a GSA Multiple Awards Schedule. In December 2007 and March 2008, Nova Datacom submitted false pricing information to the United States General Services Administration (GSA) on labor categories that Nova Datacom charged and sought to charge federal agencies for contracts awarded to Nova Datacom through a GSA multiple awards schedule. The proposed labor rates purported to reflect discounts off the best customer rate offered by Nova Datacom to three Nova Datacom references. Hallas and other Nova Datacom representatives caused Nova Datacom to submit the false pricing information to the GSA. ARGUMENT I. The defendant provided substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of others. The government moves for a downward departure under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines. The defendant provided substantial assistance to the government during its investigation and

In October 2007, the United States Small Business Administration (SBA) certified Nova Datacom as an 8(a) small disadvantaged business. Cho has admitted as part of his plea agreement to providing false information to the SBA to obtain Nova Datacoms certification as an 8(a) small disadvantaged business. -5-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 6 of 17

prosecution of other individuals involved in the scheme. The defendant has met with the criminal investigators and prosecutors numerous times. The defendant began to meet with investigators and prosecutors on December 16, 2010. The initial meeting did not go well. Although the defendant provided helpful information in some areas, he was untruthful in several others. In particular, the defendant explained conversations that he had with Malik concerning the false past performance references used by Malik to assist MED Trends. The defendant also provided documents reflecting communications between Malik and him concerning the false past performance references.6 During the initial interview, however, the defendant was untruthful concerning his own involvement in the false past performance scheme. For instance, during the initial meeting, the defendant insisted that he had not received anything from Malik in return for the defendant providing false references to MED Trends to help Malik grow MED Trendss business. Near the end of the interview on December 16, 2010, the defendant made a consensual telephone recording with Malik. The telephone conversation between Hallas and Malik revealed that Malik had also provided false past performance references to Hallas for Hallas to use to grow Nova Datacoms business. Once Hallas confirmed to investigators that Hallas had employed similarly fraudulent practices at Nova Datacom, Hallas began to cooperate against others at Nova Datacom, including Cho. During the subsequent debriefings, the defendant disclosed that others inside and outside Nova Datacom used false past performance references to win government contracts for Nova Datacom. As part of that cooperation, the defendant agreed to covertly record meetings with Cho.

As part of his cooperation, the defendant also provided information to the Civil Division of the United States Attorneys Office for the District of Maryland. -6-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 7 of 17

Sometimes, even for a cooperator, it is better to be lucky than good. In one instance of his cooperation with the criminal authorities, for example, the defendants behavior during a secretly recorded meeting with Cho was so awkward that Cho reportedly expressed to another coconspirator, Thomas Kwon, that the defendant must be cooperating with the authorities.7 Chos (correct) perception that the defendant was cooperating with law enforcement authorities led, in part, to Cho approaching law enforcement authorities to divulge Chos involvement in a multi-million dollar bribery, kickback, and bid steering scheme. Based on this substantial assistance, the government recommends a five-level downward departure, resulting in a total adjusted offense level of 14 (15-21 months). II. Based on the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), a sentence within the Stipulated Offense Level is reasonable. A. The applicable advisory Guidelines range should be 30-37 months.

The Supreme Court has declared that, in terms of determining an appropriate sentence, [a]s a matter of administration and to secure nationwide consistency, the Guidelines should be the starting point and the initial benchmark. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007) (a district court should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines range). Although advisory, the Guidelines assure some measure of uniformity in sentencing,

Kwon pleaded guilty to bribery, conspiracy to commit bank fraud, and failure to file a tax return on September 26, 2012. See United States v. Oh Sung Kwon, a/k/a Thomas Kwon, 12-cr-181 (EGS). In his Statement of Offense, Kwon admitted that Cho told Kwon that Cho intended to meet with Hallas in February 2011 to obtain a status report from Hallas on the criminal investigation. Following Chos meeting with Hallas, according to Kwon, Cho sent a text message to Kwon in Korean that stated, in substance, Im fucked. Kwon understood from Chos message that Hallas was cooperating with the criminal investigation and Hallass cooperation would implicate Cho. -7-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 8 of 17

fulfilling a key Congressional goal in adopting the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. Reference to the Guidelines, while carefully considering the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) particularly relevant to an individual defendant, minimizes the disfavored result of basing sentences on the luck of the draw in judicial assignments. Therefore, the Supreme Court has held that district courts must begin their analysis with the Guidelines and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process. Gall, 552 U.S. at 50 n.6. 1. The parties stipulated Guidelines range is between 24-37 months.

Here, the parties stipulated in the plea agreement to a maximum Total Adjusted Offense Level of 19, with an attendant range of 30-37 months imprisonment, based on the following: 2B1.1(a)(1) 2B1.1(b)(1)(G) or (H) Base Offense Level Loss more than $200,000.00 but less than $1,000,000.00 Aggravating Role (Leader/Manager/Supervisor) Acceptance 6

12-14

3B1.1(c)

2 (3) 17-19

3E1.1(a) and (b) Total:

In the plea agreement, the defendant reserved the right to argue that the loss from the offense was more than $200,000 but less than $400,000. The government, on the other hand, maintained that the loss was more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000. The government understands that the defendant will not challenge the governments position that the loss was more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000. As a result, the defendants offense level total with acceptance of

responsibility (pre-departure) is 19 (30-37 months).

-8-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 9 of 17

2.

The Probation Offices proposed Guidelines range is 30-37 months.

The Probation Office determined that the defendants total offense level was 19. See PSR at p. 17, 92. The Probation Office, however, did not have the benefit of the governments reasoning for the proposed loss amount. 3. The loss amount is more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000.

In general, the loss calculation for wire fraud, which is the underlying offense of conviction here, is the greater of either the intended loss or the actual loss. Here, there was an intended and an actual loss. The loss is the result of the following two factors. First, Nova Datacom obtained contracts based on GSAs decision to award Nova Datacom access to a GSA Multiple Awards Schedule. Nova Datacom, however, was not qualified as a legitimate 8(a) small disadvantaged business to obtain access to the schedule. In addition, the prices that Nova Datacom charged on the GSA contracts that it obtained were fictitious because of the false pricing information that the defendant and other Nova Datacom Representatives submitted to GSA. It is difficult to determine, however, if the false pricing information resulted in a loss to the government. Second, MED Trends obtained government contracts as a result of the defendants agreement to submit false past performance references to burnish MED Trendss qualifications as a government contractor. MED Trends, however, was not qualified as a legitimate service-disabled veteran-owned small business concern to obtain the awards. To arrive at the stipulated loss number under the Guidelines, the government used the fact that Nova Datacom received at least $646,149.26 in gross income as a result of contracts for services won by Nova Datacom through the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule. As stated above, Nova Datacom obtained access to the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule as a result of the defendant and

-9-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 10 of 17

other Nova Datacom representatives submitting (1) false information to the SBA to obtain status as an 8(a) small disadvantaged business, which was a prerequisite to apply for the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule; (2) false past performance references to the GSA to obtain access to the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule, which allowed Nova Datacom to obtain the awards, and (3) false pricing information to the GSA concerning the prices that Nova Datacom charged for certain labor categories on contracts won by Nova Datacom through the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule. Because Nova Datacom obtained the right to compete for the contracts on the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule as a result of its fraudulent status as an 8(a) small disadvantaged business, the Guidelines provide that the loss should be the entire amount of the contracts. See U.S.S.G. Section 2B1.1 Application Note 3(F)(ii) (In a case involving government benefits (e.g., grants, loans, entitlement program payments), loss shall be considered to be not less than the value of the benefits obtained by unintended recipients or diverted to unintended uses, as the case may be.).8 Because an 8(a) small disadvantaged business is a type of government benefit program, the full amount of the contract awarded, whether the contract was performed or not, may be considered funds diverted either from those whom it was intended to benefit or to those whom it was not.9 The reasoning underlying these cases is as follows:

As stated above, Alex Cho admitted as part of his offenses of conviction that Nova Datacom fraudulently obtained its status as an 8(a) disadvantaged small business concern. See United States v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1305-07 (11th Cir. 2009); United States v. Tulio, 263 F. App'x 258, 263 (3d Cir. 2008); United States v. Leahy, 464 F.3d 773, 789-90 (7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Bros. Constr. Co. of Ohio, Inc., 219 F.3d 300, 317-18 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Campbell, Nos. 1:CR-08-007, 1:CR-08-129, 1:CR-08-318, 1:CR-08-465, 2010 WL 2650541 (M.D. Pa. July 1, 2010); see also United States v. Benit, No. 09-14263, 2010 WL 2992402 (E.D. Mich. July 27, 2010) (discussing as an alternative theory in 28 U.S.C. 2255 case); United States v. Duff, 371 F. Supp. 2d 959, 962 & n.1 (N.D. Ill. 2005). -109

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 11 of 17

A government program that sets aside contracts for businesses owned by minority or other specific individuals (disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE)) is a government entitlement program akin to affirmative action; A government entitlement program is a government benefit; Consequently, Application Note 3(F)(ii) to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1) applies to DBE fraud; Under Note 3(F)(ii), the entire amount of the funds diverted from the DBE program or to non-DBE enterprises (generally, the amount of the contract(s) awarded) is the loss for purposes of 2B1.1(b)(1); Application Note 2(E)(I), which credits services rendered to the loss amount, is inapplicable because the entity that did the work was not a DBE, no DBE was granted or paid for the service rendered, and because the work was completed, no DBE could receive those funds, see Campbell, 2010 WL 2650541, at *4.

! ! !

As a result, to establish the loss amount here, the government recommends that the Court use the $646,149.26 that Nova Datacom obtained through contracts for services on the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule. As discussed above, this entire amount may be treated as loss under the Guidelines under Note 3(F)(ii) because the entire amount of the funds diverted from the DBE program or to non-DBE enterprises is the loss for purposes of 2B1.1(b)(1). As a result, the loss amount under the Guidelines is more than $400,000 but less than $1,000,000.10

The government did not include in the stipulated loss amount an additional $883,815.30 in contract funds fraudulently obtained by Nova Datacom through contracts for products (equipment) on the GSA Multiple Awards Schedule. In addition, the government did not include in the stipulated loss amount the losses attributable to the government contracts fraudulently obtained by MED Trends as a result of the defendants fraudulent conduct. According to the governments evidence, in addition to providing false past performance references, MED Trends submitted false documents to the SBA to retain its status as a SDVO small business concern. The entire amount of the contracts obtained by MED Trends, therefore, could be treated as loss under the Guidelines under Note 3(F)(ii) because the entire amount of the funds diverted from the DBE program or to non-DBE enterprises is the loss for purposes of 2B1.1(b)(1). -11-

10

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 12 of 17

B.

The nature and circumstances of the offense support a within-Guidelines sentence.

The nature and circumstances of the offense demonstrate that a Guidelines sentence at an offense level 19 (pre-departure) is reasonable in light of the circumstances of the offense of conviction. The defendant was involved in multiple forms of government procurement fraud. The defendant initially helped his friend, Malik, to fraudulently obtain government contracts for Maliks company, MED Trends, by providing false past performance references to bolster MED Trendss qualifications as a government contractor. As part of that fraud scheme, the defendant agreed to lie to federal agencies in the event that they contacted him to verify the references provided by MED Trends to the agencies. After he moved to Nova Datacom in November 2007, the defendant employed a similar strategy by submitting false past performance references to bolster the qualifications of Nova Datacom to perform federal contracts. While at Nova Datacom, the defendant knowingly and intentionally submitted multiple past performance references to federal agencies to win contracts for Nova Datacom. In the process, the defendant also submitted false pricing information to the GSA. This conduct falls squarely within the heartland of the Guidelines concerning conspiracy and wire fraud. C. The history and characteristics of the defendant support a within-Guidelines sentence.

The history and characteristics of the defendant demonstrate that a Guidelines sentence at an offense level 19 (pre-departure) is reasonable. The defendant has no one to blame for his criminal conduct but himself. There is nothing in the defendants background as a son, brother, husband, or father that appears to have triggered his criminal conduct. He appears to have led a

-12-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 13 of 17

normal childhood, obtained a college degree, and worked his way from lower-level jobs after college to a high-level decision making position at Nova Datacom. There apparently was also nothing in the defendants background that could have led one to predict that he would engage in such anti-social conduct. The defendant has no prior criminal history. But make no mistake: This defendant has engaged in seriously anti-social conduct. The antisocial conduct includes the defendants participation in schemes to submit false materials to federal agencies to corrupt the federal procurement process for over four years. The e-mails between the defendant and Malik in which Malik requests the defendants assistance in the scheme, and the defendant eagerly agrees to participate, evidence a casual indifference to the cheating inherent in their scheme. The defendants conduct with MED Trends alone merits a term of imprisonment consistent with a total offense level 19. The defendant organized the same fraud scheme when he joined Nova Datacom in November 2007. Nova Datacom was the type of enterprise in which a person with the defendants character flaw could prosper. Having already fraudulently obtained its status as an 8(a) small disadvantaged business by the time of the defendants arrival, the principals at Nova Datacom embraced the defendants business plan to grow Nova Datacoms contracting business by using false past performance references. While at Nova Datacom, the defendant submitted multiple false past performance references to federal agencies to help Nova Datacom win hundreds of thousands of

-13-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 14 of 17

dollars in government contracts. The defendants conduct at Nova Datacom also merits a term of imprisonment consistent with a total offense level 19.11 D. The need for the sentence imposed (1) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense, and (2) to afford adequate deterrence support a within-Guidelines sentence.

Here, a Guidelines sentence at an offense level 19 (pre-departure) is also reasonable in light of the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, provide just punishment for the offense, and to afford adequate general deterrence. For over four years, the defendant participated in fraud on the government by agreeing to submit false past performance references to assist MED Trends and, later, to submit false past performance references to assist Nova Datacom. The amounts of the contracts fraudulently obtained were on an intensifying upward trajectory, as evidenced by MED Trends fraudulently obtaining a contract from the Department of Labor valued at potentially in excess of $20 million.12 The Guidelines range of 30-37 months reflects the seriousness of the schemes and provides just punishment for those offenses. For similar reasons, the need to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar criminal conduct supports the reasonableness of a Guidelines range of 30-37 months (pre-departure). The enormous amount of money spent annually on federal government contracts provides a strong motive for criminals to infiltrate and exploit the procurement process. Although the responsible

The government has not obtained sufficient information to include as relevant conduct of the defendant the historically large bribery, kickback, and bid-rigging scheme that took place at Nova Datacom while the defendant was its Executive Vice President of Operations. The defendant has specifically denied being aware of the larger scheme. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the defendant was part of a corporate culture at Nova Datacom in which fraud on the government was an accepted way to grow the business and enrich the officers. According to the Department of Labor, MED Trends has received over $9 million in payments through the contract. -1412

11

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 15 of 17

agencies have clear obligations to protect the integrity of the process, even the most vigilant agencies are susceptible to abuse, particularly when the corrupt government contractors, such as MED Trends and Nova Datacom here, conspire to corrupt the process. In these instances, the criminal justice system can play an important role in sending a strong message to other contractors that the criminal law will deal harshly with those who corrupt the federal contracting system on such an intentional and elaborate scale. E. The kinds of sentences available.

The maximum statutory term of imprisonment here is five years. The Court may also impose a term of supervised release of not more than three years. The Court may impose a fine pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571(b) of the greater of: (1) $250,000 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571(b)(3); or (2) twice the pecuniary gain or loss pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3571(d). According to the PSR, the defendant does not have the ability to pay an immediate fine. See PSR at p. 17, 90. As a result, the government does not recommend a fine. For similar reasons, the government does not intend to seek forfeiture. F. The sentencing range established by the Guidelines.

The government and the defendant stipulated in the plea agreement to an adjusted offense level, with acceptance of responsibility, of 17-19 (pre-departure). As stated above, the parties agree the total offense level is 19, the Criminal History category is I, and the resulting Guidelines range is 30-37 months (pre-departure). In the plea agreement, the parties stipulated that the applicable fine range under the Sentencing Guidelines for offense level 19 is $6,000-$60,000.

-15-

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 16 of 17

G.

Any pertinent policy statement issued by the United States Sentencing Commission.

As stated above, the government has moved for a five-level downward departure under Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines. H. The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records.

A Guidelines sentence at an offense level 19 (pre-departure) and with a period of incarceration of 15 months (post-departure) would be reasonable in light of the need to prevent disparities between the defendant and defendants in similar cases. Here, based on a recommended downward departure of 5 levels, the defendant will receive a 50% reduction in imprisonment from the low-end of the advisory Guideline range (30 months) to the governments recommended period of imprisonment (15 months). Such a reduction is slightly higher than those provided to other defendants in the related bribery, kickback, and bid steering investigation.13 The slightly higher amount is attributable to, among other things, the defendant being the first individual to agree to

For Michael Alexander, the government recommended a 42% decrease (five levels) from the low-end of the advisory Guidelines range (108 months), resulting in the low-end of the Guidelines range after the recommended downward departure being 63 months. The government recommended a sentence of 72 months imprisonment, which fell toward the middle of Alexanders post-departure Guidelines range, and Alexander was sentenced to 72 months. James Miller was sentenced to 70 months imprisonment, which was a 48% decrease from the low-end of the advisory Guidelines range (135 months) to the low-end of the Guidelines range after the recommended downward departure of six levels (70 months). Robert McKinney was sentenced to 33 months imprisonment, which was a 42% decrease from the low-end of the advisory Guidelines range (57 months) to the low-end of the Guidelines range after the recommended downward departure of five levels (33 months). Harold Babb was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment, which was a 36% decrease from the low-end of the advisory Guidelines range (135 months) to the low-end of the Guidelines range after the recommended downward departure of four levels (87 months). -16-

13

Case 1:11-cr-00299-EGS Document 19 Filed 10/19/12 Page 17 of 17

cooperate in the investigation and his covert recordings of conversations and meetings, which ultimately led to the discovery of the larger scheme. I. Restitution.

Because the contracts that were obtained by fraud were actually performed by the contractors, the parties agreed that restitution was not an issue here. For similar reasons, the government has not sought forfeiture in this proceeding. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully moves for a downward departure under U.S.S.G. 5K1.1, with a recommended downward departure of five levels, resulting in an adjusted total offense level of 14 (15-21 months). The government recommends a sentence of 15 months and three years of supervised release. Respectfully submitted, RONALD C. MACHEN JR. United States Attorney In and For the District of Columbia

By:

//ss// MICHAEL K. ATKINSON BRYAN SEELEY Assistant United States Attorneys Fraud and Public Corruption Section 555 4th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 252-7817 (Atkinson) (202) 252-1749 (Seeley) Michael.Atkinson2@usdoj.gov Bryan.Seeley@usdoj.gov

Dated: October 19, 2012

-17-