Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/47328158/Todd-Duncan-Guilty-Plea
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 19:20:05
Document Index: 329966035

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1962', '§ 3013', '§ 3663', '§ 3572', '§ 3612', '§ 3612', '§ 3551', '§ 3553', '§ 991', '§ 1962', '§ 2', '§ 846', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 1291', '§ 3742', '§ 3', 'arty 12', '§ 1961', '§ 1961', '§ 841', '§ 1513', '§ 1956', '§ 1951']

Rod J. Rosenstein United States Attorney Clinton Fuchs Assistant United States Attorney
DIRECT: 410-209-4893 MAIN: 410-209-4800 FAX: 410-962-3124 TTY/TDD: 410-962-4462 ClintonFuchs@@usdoj.gov
September 1, 2010 Robert Waldman, Esq. 113 RidgelyAvenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Re: United States v. Todd Duncan Criminal No. WDQ-09-0183
Dear Mr. Waldman: This letter, together with the Sealed Supplement, confirms the plea agreement which has been offered to the Defendant by the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Maryland (“this Office”). If the Defendant accepts this offer, please have him execute it in the spaces provided below. If this offer has not been accepted by September 24, 2010, it will be deemed withdrawn. The terms of the agreement are as follows: Offense of Conviction 1. The Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count One of the Indictment now pending against him, charging him with conspiracy to conduct and participate in the activities of a racketeering enterprise, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). The Defendant admits that he is, in fact, guilty of that offense and will so advise the Court. Elements of the Offense 2. The elements of the offense to which the Defendant has agreed to plead guilty, and which the Government would prove if the case went to trial are as follows: a. b. c. enterprise; That the criminal enterprise set out in the Indictment existed; That the enterprise affected interstate or foreign commerce; That the Defendant was associated with or employed by the
Plea Agreement U.S. v. Todd Duncan WDQ-09-0183 Page 2 of 7 d. and; e. That the Defendant unlawfully, willfully and knowingly conspired with two or more persons to conduct and participate in the affairs of that enterprise through that pattern of racketeering activity. Penalties 3. The maximum sentence provided by statute for the offense to which the Defendant is pleading guilty is twenty (20) years, a fine of $250,000 and a period of supervised release not to exceed three years. In addition, the Defendant must pay $100.00 as a special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013, which will be due and should be paid at or before the time of sentencing. This Court may also order him to make restitution pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663, 3663A, and 3664.1 If a fine or restitution is imposed, it shall be payable immediately, unless, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d), the Court orders otherwise. The Defendant understands that if he serves a term of imprisonment, is released on supervised release, and then violates the conditions of his supervised release, his supervised release could be revoked - even on the last day of the term and the Defendant could be returned to custody to serve another period of incarceration and a new term of supervised release. The Defendant understands that the Bureau of Prisons has sole discretion in designating the institution at which the Defendant will serve any term of imprisonment imposed. Waiver of Rights 4. The Defendant understands that by entering into this agreement, he surrenders certain rights as outlined below: a. If the Defendant had persisted in his plea of not guilty, he would have had the right to a speedy jury trial with the close assistance of competent counsel. That trial could be conducted by a judge, without a jury, if the Defendant, this Office, and the Court all agreed. b. If the Defendant elected a jury trial, the jury would be composed of twelve individuals selected from the community. Counsel and the Defendant would have the opportunity to challenge prospective jurors who demonstrated bias or who were otherwise unqualified, and would have the opportunity to strike a certain number of jurors peremptorily. All That the enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity,
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612, if the Court imposes a fine in excess of $2,500 that remains unpaid 15 days after it is imposed, the Defendant shall be charged interest on that fine, unless the Court modifies the interest payment in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3).
Plea Agreement U.S. v. Todd Duncan WDQ-09-0183 Page 3 of 7 twelve jurors would have to agree unanimously before the Defendant could be found guilty of any count. The jury would be instructed that the Defendant was presumed to be innocent, and that presumption could be overcome only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. c. If the Defendant went to trial, the government would have the burden of proving the Defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Defendant would have the right to confront and cross-examine the government’s witnesses. The Defendant would not have to present any defense witnesses or evidence whatsoever. If the Defendant wanted to call witnesses in his defense, however, he would have the subpoena power of the Court to compel the witnesses to attend. d. The Defendant would have the right to testify in his own defense if he so chose, and he would have the right to refuse to testify. If he chose not to testify, the Court could instruct the jury that they could not draw any adverse inference from his decision not to testify. e. If the Defendant were found guilty after a trial, he would have the right to appeal the verdict and the Court’s pretrial and trial decisions on the admissibility of evidence to see if any errors were committed which would require a new trial or dismissal of the charges against him. By pleading guilty, the Defendant knowingly gives up the right to appeal the verdict and the Court’s decisions. f. By pleading guilty, the Defendant will be giving up all of these rights, except the right, under the limited circumstances set forth in the “Waiver of Appeal” paragraph below, to appeal the sentence. By pleading guilty, the Defendant understands that he may have to answer the Court’s questions both about the rights he is giving up and about the facts of his case. Any statements the Defendant makes during such a hearing would not be admissible against him during a trial except in a criminal proceeding for perjury or false statement. g. If the Court accepts the Defendant’s plea of guilty, there will be no further trial or proceeding of any kind, and the Court will find him guilty. h. By pleading guilty, the Defendant will also be giving up certain valuable civil rights and may be subject to deportation or other loss of immigration status. Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Apply 5. The Defendant understands that the Court will determine a sentencing guidelines range for this case (henceforth the “advisory guidelines range”) pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 at 18 U.S.C. §§ 3551-3742 (excepting 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(b)(1) and 3742(e)) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 991 through 998. The Defendant further understands that the Court will
Plea Agreement U.S. v. Todd Duncan WDQ-09-0183 Page 4 of 7 impose a sentence pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act, as excised, and must take into account the advisory guidelines range in establishing a reasonable sentence. Factual and Advisory Guidelines Stipulation 6. This Office and the Defendant understand, agree and stipulate to the Statement of Facts set forth in Attachment A hereto, which this Office would prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and to the following applicable sentencing guidelines factors: a. Guideline Stipulations
The base offense level for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) is the greater of 19 or the offense level applicable to the underlying racketeering activity, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2E1.1(a). i. The parties stipulate and agree that the underlying racketeering activity in this case involved a conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute one hundred grams or more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. ii. The parties stipulate and agree that the base offense level is thirty (30) because during the period of the conspiracy the Defendant conspired to distribute and possess with the intent to at least 700 grams of heroin but less than one kilogram of heroin, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(5). The base offense is increased upward by four (4) levels because the Defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(a). b. Acceptance of Responsibility
This Office does not oppose a two-level reduction in the Defendant’s adjusted offense level, based upon the Defendant’s apparent prompt recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct. This Office agrees to make a motion pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) for an additional one-level decrease in recognition of the Defendant’s timely notification of his intention to plead guilty. This Office may oppose any adjustment for acceptance of responsibility if the Defendant (a) fails to admit each and every item in the factual stipulation; (b) denies involvement in the offense; (c) gives conflicting statements about his involvement in the offense; (d) is untruthful with the Court, this Office, or the United States Probation Office; (e) obstructs or attempts to obstruct justice prior to sentencing; (f) engages in any criminal conduct between the date of this agreement and the date of sentencing; or (g) attempts to withdraw his plea of guilty. c. Plea Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
Plea Agreement U.S. v. Todd Duncan WDQ-09-0183 Page 5 of 7 The parties stipulate and agree pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) that a sentence of 180 months imprisonment in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons is the appropriate sentence in this case. This agreement does not affect the Court’s discretion to impose any lawful term of supervised release or fine or to set any lawful conditions of probation or supervised release. In the event that the Court rejects this plea agreement, either party may elect to declare the agreement null and void. Should the Defendant so elect, he will be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his plea pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(5). 7. This Office and the Defendant agree that with respect to the calculation of criminal history, the calculation of the advisory guidelines range, and application of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, no other offense characteristics, sentencing guidelines factors, potential departures or adjustments set forth in the United States Sentencing Guidelines or in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) will be raised or are in dispute. Obligations of the United States Attorney’s Office 8. At the time of sentencing, this Office will recommend a sentence of 180 months imprisonment, and will move to dismiss any open counts or Indictments against the Defendant. 9. The parties reserve the right to bring to the Court’s attention at the time of sentencing, and the Court will be entitled to consider, all relevant information concerning the Defendant’s background, character and conduct, including the conduct that is the subject of the counts of the Indictment that this Office has agreed to dismiss at sentencing. Waiver of Appeal 10. In exchange for the concessions made by this Office and the Defendant in this plea agreement, this Office and the Defendant waive their rights to appeal as follows: a. The Defendant knowingly waives all right, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or otherwise, to appeal the Defendant’s conviction; b. The Defendant and this Office knowingly waive all right, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 or otherwise, to appeal whatever sentence is imposed (including the right to appeal any issues that relate to the establishment of the advisory guidelines range, the determination of the defendant’s criminal history, the weighing of the sentencing factors, and the decision whether to impose and the calculation of any term of imprisonment, fine, order of forfeiture, order of restitution, and term or condition of supervised release), except as follows: (i) the Defendant reserves the right to appeal from any sentence greater than a term of imprisonment
Plea Agreement U.S. v. Todd Duncan WDQ-09-0183 Page 6 of 7 of 180 months; and (ii) this Office reserves the right to appeal from any sentence less than a term of imprisonment of 180 months. c. Nothing in this agreement shall be construed to prevent the Defendant or this Office from invoking the provisions of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(a), or from appealing from any decision thereunder, should a sentence be imposed that resulted from arithmetical, technical, or other clear error. d) The Defendant waives any and all rights under the Freedom of Information Act relating to the investigation and prosecution of the above-captioned matter and agrees not to file any request for documents from this Office or any investigating agency.
Obstruction or Other Violations of Law 11. The Defendant agrees that he will not commit any offense in violation of federal, state or local law between the date of this agreement and his sentencing in this case. In the event that the Defendant (i) engages in conduct after the date of this agreement which would justify a finding of obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, or (ii) fails to accept personal responsibility for his conduct by failing to acknowledge his guilt to the probation officer who prepares the Presentence Report, or (iii) commits any offense in violation of federal, state or local law, then this Office will be relieved of its obligations to the Defendant as reflected in this agreement. Specifically, this Office will be free to argue sentencing guidelines factors other than those stipulated in this agreement, and it will also be free to make sentencing recommendations other than those set out in this agreement. As with any alleged breach of this agreement, this Office will bear the burden of convincing the Court of the Defendant’s obstructive or unlawful behavior and/or failure to acknowledge personal responsibility by a preponderance of the evidence. The Defendant acknowledges that he may not withdraw his guilty plea because this Office is relieved of its obligations under the agreement pursuant to this paragraph. Court Not a Party 12. The Defendant expressly understands that the Court is not a party to this agreement. In the federal system, sentence is imposed by the Court, and the Court is under no obligation to accept this plea agreement. In the event the Court rejects this Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(5)(C), the Defendant will be informed that he may withdraw his plea. If he persists in the guilty plea thereafter, the Defendant understands that the disposition of the case may be less favorable than that contemplated by this agreement. The Defendant understands that neither this Office, his attorney, nor the Court can make a binding prediction or promise that the Court will accept this agreement. The Defendant agrees that no one has made such a binding prediction or promise.
Plea Agreement U.S. v. Todd Duncan WDQ-09-0183 Page 7 of 7 Entire Agreement 13. This letter supersedes any prior understandings, promises, or conditions between this Office and the Defendant and, together with the Sealed Supplement, constitutes the complete plea agreement in this case. The Defendant acknowledges that there are no other agreements, promises, undertakings or understandings between the Defendant and this Office other than those set forth in this letter and the Sealed Supplement and none will be entered into unless in writing and signed by all parties. If the Defendant fully accepts each and every term and condition of this agreement, please sign and have the Defendant sign the original and return it to me promptly.
Very truly yours, Rod J. Rosenstein United States Attorney
By:_________________________________ James T. Wallner Assistant United States Attorney
I have read this agreement, including the Sealed Supplement, and carefully reviewed every part of it with my attorney. I understand it, and I voluntarily agree to it. Specifically, I have reviewed the Factual and Advisory Guidelines Stipulation with my attorney, and I do not wish to change any part of it. I am completely satisfied with the representation of my attorney. ________________ Date ____________________________ Todd Duncan
I am Todd Duncan’s attorney. I have carefully reviewed every part of this agreement, including the Sealed Supplement, with him. He advises me that he understands and accepts its terms. To my knowledge, his decision to enter into this agreement is an informed and voluntary one. _________________ Date ____________________________ Robert Waldman, Esq.
ATTACHMENT A STIPULATED FACTS The undersigned parties hereby stipulate and agree that if this case had proceeded to trial, the Government would have proved the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt. The undersigned parties also stipulate and agree that the following facts do not encompass all of the facts that would have been proven had this matter proceeded to trial. The Racketeering Enterprise 1. The Black Guerilla Family ("BGF"), also known as the "Black Family," the "Family" or the "Black Vanguard," is a nationwide gang operating in prison facilities and major cities throughout the United States. Founded in California in the 1960s and introduced into the Maryland correctional system in the mid 1990s, BGF is now one of the most powerful gangs in the state. Although traditionally a prison-based gang, BGF in Maryland is increasingly active and well organized on the streets of Baltimore City, Maryland. 2. BGF factions are currently operating in Baltimore City as well as various prison facilities in Maryland. 3. BGF leaders, collectively known as the "Supreme Bush," directed the activities of BGF members in Maryland. Reflecting the paramilitary nature of the BGF, the "Supreme Bush" was organized according to a strict rank structure which included a Supreme Commander, Lieutenant Commander and Ministers of Justice, Defense, Finance, Intelligence and Education. Within each correctional institution and neighborhood of Baltimore City in which BGF had established a presence, a local organizational structure was put in place. These so-called "Bubble Regimes" mirrored the structure of the Supreme Bush and so included its own Commander, Lieutenant Commander and various ministers. The commander of each "Bubble Regime" was appointed by, and reported to, the Supreme Bush. 4. BGF members were required to follow a strict code of conduct. BGF members who failed to adhere to this code were subjected to various forms of discipline, to include physical violence. 5. BGF members were expected to recruit new members (known as "Seeds") into BGF and familiarize those new members with the history, doctrine and code of conduct of the organization. 6. BGF members engaged in various criminal activities on the streets of Baltimore City, including, but not limited to, drug-trafficking, extortion, robbery, bribery and money laundering, retaliation against witnesses and obstruction of justice. 7. BGF members engaged in various criminal activities inside the Maryland 1
Correctional System, including but not limited to, drug-trafficking, extortion, robbery, bribery and money laundering, retaliation against witnesses and obstruction of justice. 8. BGF members arranged for the smuggling of narcotics, cellular telephones, tobacco, food and other contraband prohibited by correctional facility regulations into Maryland correctional facilities. 9. BGF members recruited and paid employees of prison facilities, including corrections officers, to assist BGF and its members in the smuggling of contraband, the collection of intelligence and in the concealment of BGF's criminal activities. 10. BGF members, with the assistance of corrections officers and employees, engaged in an extortion scheme by which prison inmates were required to pay for "protection." Inmates who refused to pay for such "protection" were targeted for violence by members of BGF. 11. BGF members used the funds procured through drug trafficking, extortion, and the sale of contraband to enrich themselves and to further the activities of the organization, including, but not limited to drug-trafficking. 12. BGF members protected and broadened their control of the Baltimore City drug trade through violence and intimidation. 13. BGF members protected and broadened their control of the underground "prison economy" in Maryland correctional facilities through violence and intimidation. 14. BGF, including its leadership, members and associates, constituted an "enterprise" as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), that is, a group of individuals associated in fact that engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce. The enterprise constituted an ongoing organization whose members functioned as a continuing unit for the common purpose of achieving the objectives of the enterprise. Purposes of the Enterprise 15. The purposes of the enterprise included the following: a. Preserving and protecting the power, territory and profits of the enterprise through the use of violence, threats of violence, intimidation, extortion, armed robbery, money laundering, bribery, and narcotics trafficking; b. Promoting and enhancing the enterprise and its members' and associates' activities through the use of violence, threats of violence, intimidation, extortion, armed robberies, money laundering, bribery, and narcotics trafficking, retaliation against witnesses and obstruction of justice;
c. Keeping victims and potential victims in fear of the enterprise and in fear of its members and associates, through violence and threats of violence; d. Maryland; e. Providing financial support and information to gang members, including those who were incarcerated for committing acts of violence or other offenses; and f. Providing assistance to other gang members who committed crimes for and on behalf of the gang in order to hinder, obstruct and prevent law enforcement officers from identifying the offender, apprehending the offender and trying and punishing the offender. The Racketeering Conspiracy 16. Beginning in or about 2006 and continuing through June 2010, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the Defendant, Todd Duncan, being a person employed by and associated with BGF, an enterprise engaged in, and the activities of which affected, interstate and foreign commerce, together with others known and unknown, did knowingly and intentionally conspire to conduct and participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) and (5), which pattern of racketeering activity consisted of multiple acts involving narcotics trafficking, indictable under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846; multiple acts involving robbery in violation of Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 3-402 and the Common Law of Maryland, extortion, in violation of Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 3-701, and bribery in violation of Maryland Criminal Law Code Section 9-201; and multiple acts indictable under 18 U.S.C. § 1513 (retaliation against a witness or an informant); 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (money laundering); and 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (interference with commerce by robbery). 17. The Defendant committed, or agreed that a conspirator would commit, at least two acts of racketeering activity in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, including, drug trafficking. 18. Based on the facts readily provable by the Government, it was foreseeable to the Defendant that members of the conspiracy possessed with the intent to distribute at least 700 grams but less than one kilogram of heroin. 19. During the course of the conspiracy, the Defendant acted as an organizer and leader of the BGF by enforcing discipline among gang members and by directing BGF members to engage in, among other things, drug trafficking. Acts in Furtherance of the Enterprise 20. At various times during the conspiracy TODD DUNCAN acted as a source 3 Generating financial profits for the furtherance of the enterprise in
of supply of heroin to members of the BGF, including DUCONZE CHAMBERS, DAVON McFADDEN and KIMBERLY McINTOSH. . 21. At various times during the period of the conspiracy, TODD DUNCAN operated street level heroin shops. DUNCAN utilized individuals, including JERMAIN DAVIS, JON BRICE, KIMBERLY McINTOSH and others, to store, process and sell heroin for his enrichment and for the enrichment of BGF. 22. At various times during the period of the conspiracy, TODD DUNCAN and DAVON McFADDEN arranged for the sale of bulk quantities of heroin to various wholesale customers. 23. At various times during the period of the conspiracy, TODD DUNCAN was advised by various members of BGF of the status of problems within the enterprise and the collection of monies for the enrichment of the enterprise. In particular, on or about March 27, 2010, during an intercepted telephone conversation, JAMES HARRIED informed TODD DUNCAN that DAVON McFADDEN had collected membership dues from BGF members and that he, HARRIED, would deliver a written record of which BGF members had paid their fees to KIMBERLY McINTOSH. These dues were paid, at least in part, with the proceeds of BGF narcotics trafficking and other racketeering activity. 24. At various times during the conspiracy, TODD DUNCAN attended meeting of the high-ranking members of the BGF. These meetings occurred at various locations in and around Baltimore City, including KIMBERLY McINTOSH’s home, 1120 Homewood Avenue. During these meetings, racketeering activities, including drug trafficking, money laundering, commercial robberies and retaliation against rival gangs and BGF members, who broke protocol, were discussed. Duncan, who was the overall city-wide commander of the BGF had ultimate authority to authorize the actions discussed during these meetings.
I have read this statement of facts, and carefully reviewed every part of it with my attorney. I understand it, and I acknowledge that it is true and correct. I do not wish to change any part of it. I am completely satisfied with the representation of my attorney. 4
____________________________ Todd Duncan
I am Todd Duncan’s attorney. I have carefully reviewed every part of this statement of facts with him. To my knowledge, his decision to sign it is an informed and voluntary one.
____________________________ Robert Waldman, Esq.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TODD DUNCAN, * * * Criminal No. WDQ-09-0183 * UNDER SEAL * * ...ooOoo...
SEALED ADDENDUM TO PLEA AGREEMENT This is not a cooperation agreement.
Todd Duncan Guilty Plea by citypaper1.3K viewsEmbedDownloadInterests: Types, Business/Law, Court FilingsRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedBGFby MrBGSBGF RICO Indictmentby Bret McCabeBGF 2010 Warrantby citypaperBGF Warrantby citypaperBGF Case Letterby Ian DuncanUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01400-208776by legalmattersBlock.plea.Agreementby jamiljonnaUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02025-220405by legalmattersZacher.plea.Agreementby CLDC_GSUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01413-209041by legalmattersSavoie.plea.Agreement.redactedby CLDC_GSPaulby CLDC_GSThurston.plea.Agreement.redactedby CLDC_GSPlea Agreement Fernando Neave-Cenicerosby Bob PriceUnited States v. Amadou Conde, AKA Fode Marega, 178 F.3d 616, 2d Cir. (1999)by Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Villa-Vazquez, 536 F.3d 1189, 10th Cir. (2008)by Scribd Government DocsTankersley.plea.Agreement.redactedby CLDC_GSUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01142-203227by legalmattersFederal Criminal Plea Agreement for Rachel Duncanby The State NewspaperUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00789-200535by legalmattersGayla St. Julien Plea Agreement - TVFishbowl.com by TVFishbowlUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00968-201432by legalmattersUS v Chino Anthrax Plea-C.martinezby Chivis MartinezUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01454-209823by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01842-217223by legalmattersUnited States v. Troy Vaval, AKA Justice Vaval, 404 F.3d 144, 2d Cir. (2005)by Scribd Government DocsKatelynCurtisPleaby steve_gravelleTisdale Plea Agreementby Ron SylvesterSimilar to Todd Duncan Guilty PleaBGFBGF RICO IndictmentBGF 2010 WarrantBGF WarrantBGF Case LetterUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01400-208776Block.plea.AgreementUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 02025-220405Zacher.plea.AgreementUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01413-209041Savoie.plea.Agreement.redactedPaulThurston.plea.Agreement.redactedPlea Agreement Fernando Neave-CenicerosUnited States v. Amadou Conde, AKA Fode Marega, 178 F.3d 616, 2d Cir. (1999)United States v. Villa-Vazquez, 536 F.3d 1189, 10th Cir. (2008)Tankersley.plea.Agreement.redactedUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01142-203227Federal Criminal Plea Agreement for Rachel DuncanUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00789-200535Gayla St. Julien Plea Agreement - TVFishbowl.com US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00968-201432US v Chino Anthrax Plea-C.martinezUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01454-209823US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01842-217223United States v. Troy Vaval, AKA Justice Vaval, 404 F.3d 144, 2d Cir. (2005)KatelynCurtisPleaTisdale Plea AgreementGerlach.plea.Agreement.redactedRaylonJonesPleaTodd Duncan Guilty Plea