Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/304334/US-Department-of-Justice-Antitrust-Case-Brief-01781-216082
Timestamp: 2018-08-17 14:12:48
Document Index: 223268235

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3237', '§ 3742', '§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3571', '§ 3561', '§ 3563', '§ 3013', '§ 3553', '§ 1', '§ 3553', '§1', '§1', '§ 3571', '§5', '§ 3013', '§ 3553', '§6', '§ 3571', '§8', '§ 1621', '§ 1623', '§ 401', '§ 1503', '§ 1621', '§ 1001', '§ 1503', '§ 1621', '§ 1001', '§ 1623', '§ 1503', '§ 401', '§8']

US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01781-216082 | United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines | Plea Bargain
US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01781-216082
7 8 9 10 11 12 v. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1. PLEA AGREEMENT The United States of America and SOLVAY S.A. (“defendant”), a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Belgium, hereby enter into the following Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Fed. R. Crim. P.”): RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT The defendant understands its rights: (a) (b) (c) to be represented by an attorney; to be charged by indictment; as a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Belgium, to SOLVAY S.A., Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CR 06-0159 MMC PLEA AGREEMENT
decline to accept service of the Summons in this case, and to contest the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California;
PLEA AGREEMENT–SOLVAY
1(b)-(g) above, including all jurisdictional defenses to the prosecution of this case, and agrees voluntarily to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against it in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendant agrees to waive any venue objections it may have under 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a), or any other statute or rule of law, to the charges set forth in the Information. The defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion, including but not limited to an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, that challenges the sentence imposed by the Court if that sentence is consistent with or below the recommended sentence in Paragraph 9 of this Plea Agreement, regardless of how the sentence is determined by the Court. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(c). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant will waive indictment and plead guilty at arraignment to a two-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Information will charge the defendant with one count of participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of hydrogen peroxide sold in the United States and elsewhere, beginning on or about July 1, 1998 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Additionally, the Information will charge the defendant with a second count of
participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of sodium perborates sold to Procter & Gamble, beginning on or about June 1, 2000 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. 3. The defendant, pursuant to the terms of this Plea Agreement, will plead guilty to
the criminal charges described in Paragraph 2 above and will make a factual admission of guilt to the Court in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, as set forth in Paragraphs 4 and 5 below. FACTUAL BASIS FOR COUNT ONE (HYDROGEN PEROXIDE) 4. Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence
sufficient to prove the following facts in support of Count One of the Information: (a) For purposes of Count One, the “relevant period” is that period beginning
on or about July 1, 1998 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001. During the relevant period, the defendant was a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Belgium. The defendant has its principal place of business in Brussels, Belgium. During the relevant period, the defendant was a producer of hydrogen peroxide, was engaged in the sale of hydrogen peroxide in the United States and elsewhere, and employed 200 or more individuals. Hydrogen peroxide is a chemical compound with strong oxidizing properties that is widely used as a bleaching agent. Hydrogen peroxide has multiple industrial uses, including applications in the electronics, energy production, mining, cosmetics, food processing, textiles, and pulp and paper manufacturing industries. During the relevant period, the defendant’s sales of hydrogen peroxide to U.S. customers totaled approximately $231,000,000. (b) During the relevant period, the defendant, through certain of its former
officers, directors, and employees, participated in a conspiracy among major hydrogen peroxide producers, the primary purpose of which was to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of hydrogen peroxide sold in the United States and elsewhere. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant, through certain of its former officers, directors, and employees, engaged in discussions and attended meetings with representatives of other major hydrogen peroxide producers. During these discussions
and meetings, agreements were reached to fix the price of hydrogen peroxide sold in the United States and elsewhere. (c) During the relevant period, hydrogen peroxide sold by one or more of the
conspirator firms, and equipment and supplies necessary to the production and distribution of hydrogen peroxide, as well as payments for hydrogen peroxide, traveled in interstate and foreign commerce. The business activities of the defendant and its co-conspirators in connection with the production and sale of hydrogen peroxide affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce. (d) Hydrogen peroxide affected by this conspiracy was sold by one or more of
the conspirators to customers in this District. FACTUAL BASIS FOR COUNT TWO (SODIUM PERBORATES) 5. Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence
sufficient to prove the following facts in support of Count Two of the Information: (a) For purposes of Count Two, the “relevant period” is that period beginning
on or about June 1, 2000 and continuing until on or about December 1, 2001. During the relevant period, the defendant was a producer of sodium perborates, was engaged in the sale of sodium perborates in the United States and elsewhere, and employed 200 or more individuals. The chemical compound sodium perborate is a strong oxidizing agent used to bleach, clean, and deodorize. The primary application of sodium perborates is in detergents, but it is also found in toothpaste, hair care products, and topical antiseptics and is used as a reactive agent in industrial processes. During the relevant period, the defendant’s sales of sodium perborates to Procter & Gamble totaled approximately $31,000,000. (b) During the relevant period, the defendant, through certain of its former
officers, directors, and employees, participated in a conspiracy with a major sodium perborates producer, the primary purpose of which was to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of sodium perborates sold to Procter & Gamble. In
furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant, through certain of its former officers, directors, and employees, engaged in discussions and attended meetings with representatives of a major sodium perborates producer. During these discussions and meetings, agreements were reached to fix the price of sodium perborates sold to Procter & Gamble. (c) During the relevant period, sodium perborates sold by one or more of the
conspirator firms, and equipment and supplies necessary to the production and distribution of sodium perborates, as well as payments for sodium perborates, traveled in interstate and foreign commerce. The business activities of the defendant and its coconspirator in connection with the production and sale of sodium perborates affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce. POSSIBLE MAXIMUM SENTENCE 6. The defendant understands that the statutory maximum penalty which may be
imposed against it upon conviction for each violation of Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act is a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of: (a) (b) $10 million (15 U.S.C. § 1); twice the gross pecuniary gain the conspirators derived from the crime (18
conspirators (18 U.S.C. § 3571(c) and (d)). 7. In addition, the defendant understands that: (a) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(1), the Court may impose a term of
(“U.S.S.G.,” “Sentencing Guidelines,” or “Guidelines”), 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(2) or 3663(a)(3), the Court may order it to pay restitution to the victims of the offense; and (c) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B), the Court is required to order the 5
defendant to pay a $400 special assessment for each count upon conviction for the charged crimes. SENTENCING GUIDELINES 8. The defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not
mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines in effect on the day of sentencing, along with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in determining and imposing sentence, unless, the Court, as authorized by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11, determines that use of the Sentencing Guidelines in effect on the date that the defendant is sentenced would violate the ex post facto clause of the United States Constitution. If the Court makes such a determination, the court shall use the Sentencing Guidelines in effect as of December 1, 2001, the last date that the offense of conviction was committed. The defendant understands that the Guidelines determinations will be made by the Court by a preponderance of the evidence standard. The defendant understands that although the Court is not ultimately bound to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range, its sentence must be reasonable based upon consideration of all relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. §1B1.8, the United States agrees that self-incriminating information that the defendant provides to the United States pursuant to this Plea Agreement will not be used to increase the volume of affected commerce attributable to the defendant or in determining the defendant’s applicable Guidelines range, except to the extent provided in U.S.S.G. §1B1.8(b). SENTENCING AGREEMENT 9. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the United States and the defendant
agree that the appropriate dispositions of Counts One and Two are, and agree to recommend jointly that the Court impose, the following: A sentence requiring the defendant to pay to the United States a criminal fine of $40.87 million, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d), payable in full before the fifteenth (15th) day after the date of judgment (“the recommended sentence”). The parties agree that there exists no aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in formulating the Sentencing Guidelines justifying a departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. §5K2.0. The parties agree not
to seek or support any sentence other than the recommended sentence, nor any Guidelines adjustment for any reason that is not set forth in this Plea Agreement. The parties further agree that the recommended sentence set forth in this Plea Agreement is reasonable. (a) The defendant understands that the Court will order it to pay an $800
special assessment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(B), in addition to any fine imposed. (b) Both parties will recommend that no term of probation be
imposed, but the defendant understands that the Court’s denial of this request will not void this Plea Agreement. (c) The United States and the defendant jointly submit that this Plea
Agreement, together with the record that will be created by the United States and the defendant at the plea and sentencing hearings, and the further disclosure described in Paragraph 10, will provide sufficient information concerning the defendant, the offenses charged in this case, and the defendant’s role in the offenses to enable the meaningful exercise of sentencing authority by the Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The United States and defendant agree to request jointly that the Court accept the defendant’s guilty plea and impose sentence on an expedited schedule as early as the date of arraignment, based upon the record provided by the defendant and the United States, under the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(c)(1)(A)(ii), U.S.S.G. §6A1.1, and Rule 32-1(b) of the Criminal Local Rules. The Court’s denial of the request to impose sentence on an expedited schedule will not void this Plea Agreement. (d) The United States contends that had this case gone to trial, the United
States would have presented evidence to prove that the gain derived from or the loss resulting from the charged offenses is sufficient to justify the recommended sentence set forth in this paragraph, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). For purposes of this plea and sentencing only, the defendant waives its rights to contest this calculation. 10. The United States and the defendant agree that the applicable Guidelines fine
range exceeds the fine contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 9 above.
Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of the defendant, as described in Paragraph 14 of this Plea Agreement, and prior to sentencing in this case, the United States agrees that it will make a motion, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §8C4.1, for a downward departure from the Guidelines fine range and will request that the Court impose the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 9 of this Plea Agreement because of the defendant’s substantial assistance in the government’s investigation and prosecution of violations of federal criminal law in the hydrogen peroxide industry. 11. Subject to the ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of the defendant described in
Paragraph 14 of this Plea Agreement, and before sentencing in the case, the United States will fully advise the Court and the Probation Office as to: (i) the fact, manner, and extent of the defendant’s cooperation and its commitment to prospective cooperation with the United States’ investigation and prosecutions; (ii) all material facts relating to the defendant’s involvement in the charged offenses; and (iii) all other relevant conduct. 12. The United States and the defendant understand that the Court retains complete
and the defendant agree that this Plea Agreement, except for Paragraph 12(b) below, shall be rendered void. (b) If the Court does not accept the recommended sentence,
the defendant will be free to withdraw its guilty plea (Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5) and (d)). If the defendant withdraws its plea of guilty, this Plea Agreement, the guilty plea, and any statement made in the course of any proceedings under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 regarding the guilty plea or this Plea Agreement or made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the government shall not be admissible against the defendant in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as otherwise provided in Fed. R. Evid. 410. In addition, the defendant agrees that, if it withdraws its guilty plea pursuant to this subparagraph of the Plea Agreement, the statute of limitations period for any offense referred to in Paragraph
16 of this Plea Agreement will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of the Plea Agreement and the date the defendant withdrew its guilty plea or for a period of sixty (60) days after the date of the signing of the Plea Agreement, whichever period is greater. 13. In light of the civil class action cases filed against the defendant, which potentially
provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages, the United States agrees that it will not seek a restitution order for the offenses charged in the Information. DEFENDANT’S COOPERATION 14. The defendant and its subsidiaries that are engaged in the sale or production of
hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborates (collectively, “related entities”) will cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal investigations of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of hydrogen peroxide and sodium perborates, any other federal investigation resulting therefrom, and any litigation or other proceedings arising or resulting from any such investigation to which the United States is a party (“federal proceeding”). The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of the defendant shall include, but not be limited to: (a) producing to the United States all non-privileged documents, information,
and other materials, wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of the defendant or any of its related entities, requested by the United States in connection with any federal proceeding; and (b) using its best efforts to secure the ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation,
as defined in Paragraph 15 of this Plea Agreement, of the current and former directors, officers, and employees of the defendant or any of its related entities as may be requested by the United States, but excluding Gareth L. Hall, Robert M. Monsen, and Jean-Marie Demoulin, including making such persons available in the United States and at other mutually agreed-upon locations, at the defendant’s expense, for interviews and the provision of testimony in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings in connection with any federal proceeding.
14(b) above will be subject to the procedures and protections of this paragraph, and shall include, but not be limited to: (a) producing in the United States and at other mutually agreed-upon
locations all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents, and other materials, wherever located, requested by attorneys and agents of the United States; (b) making himself or herself available for interviews in the United States and
federal proceeding, testifying in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings fully, truthfully, and under oath, subject to the penalties of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making false statements or declarations in grand jury or court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1623), contempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402), and obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503); and (f) agreeing that, if the agreement not to prosecute him or
her in this Plea Agreement is rendered void under Paragraph 17(c), the statute of limitations period for any relevant offense as defined in Paragraph 17(a) will be tolled as to him or her for the period between the date of the signing of this Plea Agreement and six (6) months after the date that the United States gave notice of its intent to void its obligations to that person under the Plea Agreement.
imposition of the recommended sentence, and subject to the cooperation requirements of Paragraph 14 of this Plea Agreement, the United States agrees that it will not bring further criminal charges against the defendant or any of its related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement that was undertaken in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of hydrogen peroxide or sodium perborates. The nonprosecution terms of this paragraph do not apply to civil matters of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence. 17. The United States agrees to the following: (a) Upon the Court’s acceptance of the guilty plea called for by this Plea
Agreement and the imposition of the recommended sentence and subject to the exceptions noted in Paragraph 17(c), the United States will not bring criminal charges against any current or former director, officer, or employee of the defendant or its related entities for any act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement and while that person was acting as a director, officer, or employee of the defendant or its related entities that was undertaken in furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of hydrogen peroxide or sodium perborates (“relevant offense”), except that the protections granted in this paragraph shall not apply to Gareth L. Hall, Robert M. Monsen, or Jean-Marie Demoulin; (b) Should the United States determine that any current or former director,
officer, or employee of the defendant or its related entities may have information relevant to any federal proceeding, the United States may request that person’s cooperation under the terms of this Plea Agreement by written request delivered to counsel for the individual (with a copy to the undersigned counsel for the defendant) or, if the individual is not known by the United States to be represented, to the undersigned counsel for the defendant; (c) If any person requested to provide cooperation under Paragraph 17(b) fails 11
to comply with his or her obligations under Paragraph 15, then the terms of this Plea Agreement as they pertain to that person, and the agreement not to prosecute that person granted in this Plea Agreement, shall be rendered void; (d) Except as provided in Paragraph 17(e), information provided by a person
described in Paragraph 17(b) to the United States under the terms of this Plea Agreement pertaining to any relevant offense, or any information directly or indirectly derived from that information, may not be used against that person in a criminal case, except in a prosecution for perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making a false statement or declaration (18 U.S.C. §§ 1001, 1623), or obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503); (e) If any person who provides information to the United States under this
Plea Agreement fails to comply fully with his or her obligations under Paragraph 15 of this Plea Agreement, the agreement in Paragraph 17(d) not to use that information or any information directly or indirectly derived from it against that person in a criminal case shall be rendered void; (f) The nonprosecution terms of this paragraph do not apply to civil matters
of any kind, to any violation of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence; and (g) Documents provided under Paragraphs 14(a) and 15(a) shall be deemed
responsive to outstanding grand jury subpoenas issued to the defendant or any of its related entities. 18. The United States agrees that when any person travels to the United States for
interviews, grand jury appearances, or court appearances pursuant to this Plea Agreement, or for meetings with counsel in preparation therefor, the United States will take no action, based upon any relevant offense, to subject such person to arrest, detention, or service of process, or to prevent such person from departing the United States. This paragraph does not apply to an individual's commission of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001), making false statements or declarations in grand jury or court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 1623), obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503), or contempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402) in
connection with any testimony or information provided or requested in any federal proceeding. 19. The defendant understands that it may be subject to administrative action by
federal or state agencies other than the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, based upon the conviction resulting from this Plea Agreement, and that this Plea Agreement in no way controls whatever action, if any, other agencies may take. However, the United States agrees that, if requested, it will advise the appropriate officials of any governmental agency considering such administrative action of the fact, manner, and extent of the cooperation of the defendant and its related entities, including the fact that the United States, pursuant to U.S.S.G. §8C4.1, moved for a downward departure from the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range, based on the defendant’s substantial assistance to the United States, as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative action, if any, to take. REPRESENTATION BY COUNSEL 20. The defendant has been represented by counsel and is fully satisfied that its
attorneys have provided competent legal representation. The defendant has thoroughly reviewed this Plea Agreement and acknowledges that counsel has advised it of the nature of the charge, any possible defenses to the charge, and the nature and range of possible sentences. VOLUNTARY PLEA 21. The defendant’s decision to enter into this Plea Agreement and to tender a plea of
guilty is freely and voluntarily made and is not the result of force, threats, assurances, promises, or representations other than the representations contained in this Plea Agreement. The United States has made no promises or representations to the defendant as to whether the Court will accept or reject the recommendations contained within this Plea Agreement. VIOLATION OF PLEA AGREEMENT 22. The defendant agrees that, should the United States determine in good faith,
during the period that any federal proceeding is pending, that the defendant or any of its related entities have failed to provide full and truthful cooperation, as described in Paragraph 14 of this Plea Agreement, or has otherwise violated any provision of this Plea Agreement, the United States will notify counsel for the defendant in writing by personal or overnight delivery or
facsimile transmission and may also notify counsel by telephone of its intention to void any of its obligations under this Plea Agreement (except its obligations under this paragraph), and the defendant and its related entities shall be subject to prosecution for any federal crime of which the United States has knowledge including, but not limited to, the substantive offenses relating to the investigation resulting in this Plea Agreement. The defendant may seek Court review of any determination made by the United States under this Paragraph to void any of its obligations under the Plea Agreement. The defendant and its related entities agree that, in the event that the United States is released from its obligations under this Plea Agreement and brings criminal charges against the defendant or its related entities for any offense referred to in Paragraph 16 of this Plea Agreement, the statute of limitations period for such offense will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of this Plea Agreement and six (6) months after the date the United States gave notice of its intent to void its obligations under this Plea Agreement. 23. The defendant understands and agrees that in any further prosecution
of it or its related entities resulting from the release of the United States from its obligations under this Plea Agreement, because of the defendant’s or its related entities’ violation of the Plea Agreement, any documents, statements, information, testimony, or evidence provided by it, its related entities, or current or former directors, officers, or employees of it or its related entities to attorneys or agents of the United States, federal grand juries, or courts, and any leads derived therefrom, may be used against it or its related entities in any such further prosecution. In addition, the defendant unconditionally waives its right to challenge the use of such evidence in any such further prosecution, notwithstanding the protections of Fed. R. Evid. 410. ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT 24. This Plea Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the
United States and the defendant concerning the disposition of the criminal charges in this case. This Plea Agreement cannot be modified except in writing, signed by the United States and the defendant. 25. The undersigned is authorized to enter this Plea Agreement on behalf of the
defendant as evidenced by the Grant of Power of Attorney authorized by the Board of Directors
of the defendant attached to, and incorporated by reference in, this Plea Agreement. 26. The undersigned attorneys for the United States have been authorized
by the Attorney General of the United States to enter this Plea Agreement on behalf of the United States. 27. A facsimile signature shall be deemed an original signature for the purpose of
executing this Plea Agreement. Multiple signature pages are authorized for the purpose of executing this Plea Agreement. DATED:______March 9, 2006___________ Respectfully submitted,
BY:__________/s/____________________ Edwin J. Buckingham III, Esq. General Counsel Solvay America, Inc. COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BY:___________/s/___________________ Steven W. Thomas, Esq. Steven R. Peikin, Esq. Adam S. Paris, Esq. Sullivan & Cromwell LLP 1888 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 712-6600
BY:___________/s/__________________ Niall E. Lynch Assistant Chief, San Francisco Office Lidia Spiroff Sidney A. Majalya Lara M. Kroop Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division 450 Golden Gate Avenue Box 36046, Room 10-0101 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 436-6660
Documents Similar To US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01781-216082
United States v. Narvaez-Rosario, 440 F.3d 50, 1st Cir. (2006)
United States v. Gonzalez-Garcia, 10th Cir. (2004)
United States v. Embree, 4th Cir. (2008)
United States v. Martinez-Martinez, 4th Cir. (2007)
United States v. Clark, 55 F.3d 9, 1st Cir. (1995)
United States v. Michael Crowe, 516 F.2d 824, 4th Cir. (1975)
US v. Paul Cosgrove (DOJ Sentencing Memo)