The opinion of the court was delivered by: MUNSON
In the instant motion defendant David A. Jones asks the court for an order correcting his sentence or, in the alternative, permission to withdraw his guilty plea. The court heard oral argument on October 6, 1995, at Syracuse, New York and denied the motion in a decision from the bench. The following constitutes the court's Memorandum-Decision and Order.
In an Indictment dated April 20, 1994, defendant was charged with three counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, nine counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (a)(1)(B)(i), and one count of knowingly engaging in an illegal monetary transaction affecting interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. April 20, 1994 Indictment, 94-CR-143, Document ("Doc."), 7. On December 7, 1994, a grand jury returned a superseding indictment, expanding the allegations of criminal conduct under the same counts contained in the original indictment. December 7, 1994 Indictment, 94-CR-143, Doc. 42.
In an indictment dated September 28, 1994, defendant also was charged with two counts of perjury in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. It was alleged that during his arraignment on the April 1994 indictment and during a subsequent bail reconsideration hearing, defendant lied about his assets in an application for court-appointed counsel and in a request for modification of the conditions of pretrial release. September 28, 1994 Indictment, 94-CR-341, Doc. 1.
On February 22, 1995, defendant and the government signed a plea agreement. Plea Agreement, Doc. 63
In exchange for defendant's guilty plea to two counts of wire fraud, the government agreed to recommend to the court the dismissal of all the remaining charges contained in the April, September and December 1994 indictments. Plea Agreement, Doc. 63, at 5. Also on February 22, 1995, defendant plead guilty to the wire fraud charges. Transcript of February 22, 1995 Plea Allocution ("Plea Allocution"), Doc. 72.
In the Presentence Investigation Report submitted to the court, the Probation Department found defendant's total offense level to be 15. The findings were based on the following calculations:
Base offense level ( § 2F1.1(a)) 6
Loss more than $ 200,000 ( § 2F1.1(b)(1)(I)) 8
More than minimal planning/
more than one victim ( § 2F1.1(b)(2)) 2
Obstructing or impeding the
administration of justice ( § 3C1.1) 2
Acceptance of Responsibility ( § 3E1.1) (3)
Total offense level 15
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw ...