Source: https://stg.justice.gov/atr/case-document/plea-agreement-380
Timestamp: 2019-03-19 19:27:25
Document Index: 144716218

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3742', '§ 2241', '§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 3013', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Original Filed 12/13/06
D. JAMES SOGAS,
Case No. CR 06-0752 PJH
The United States of America and D. James Sogas ("Defendant") 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."):
2.	Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(g) above. 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 or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 2255, that challenges the sentence imposed by the Court if that sentence is consistent with or below the recommended sentence in Paragraph 8 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). Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall act as a bar to the Defendant perfecting any legal remedies he may otherwise have on appeal or collateral attack respecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), Defendant will waive indictment and plead guilty at arraignment to a one-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Information will charge that beginning on or about April 1, 1999, and continuing until on or about June 15, 2002, Elpida Memory, Inc. ("Elpida") and coconspirators participated in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of dynamic random access memory ("DRAM")to be sold to certain original equipment manufacturers of personal computers and servers ("OEMs"), in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Information will further charge that Defendant, a former employee of Elpida's U.S. subsidiary, Elpida Memory (USA), Inc., joined and participated in the charged conspiracy from on or about April 1, 2001, until on or about June 15, 2002, and also reached agreements with his coconspirators to coordinate bids to Sun Microsystems on a 1 Gigabyte Next-Generation Dual In-Line Memory Module ("1 Gigabyte Next-Generation Module") lot during Sun Microsystems auctions on December 5, 2001 and March 26, 2002.
For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the "relevant period" is that period from on or about April 1, 2001, to on or about June 15, 2002. Elpida is an entity organized and existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. During the relevant period, Defendant was employed by Elpida Memory (USA), Inc., a wholly owned Elpida subsidiary in the United States. During the relevant period, Defendant's title was Vice President of Sales.
In the course of his employment during the relevant period, Defendant was engaged in the sales and marketing of DRAM in the United States. Among other responsibilities, Defendant recommended to his superiors and other employees at Elpida prices for the sale of DRAM to be sold to certain OEMs in the United States.
During the relevant period, Defendant participated in a pre-existing conspiracy, as described below, in the United States and elsewhere among certain DRAM producers and their officers and employees, the primary purpose of which was to raise and stabilize the price of DRAM sold to certain OEMs. The conspiracy directly affected these OEMs in the United States: Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Compaq Computer Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Apple Computer, Inc., and Gateway, Inc. The Defendant participated in the conspiracy by engaging in communications with representatives of other DRAM producers and sellers, during which the competitors exchanged information on pricing. Defendant communicated that pricing information to his superiors and others, knowing that at certain times it would be used for the purpose and with the effect of influencing the price of DRAM sold to certain OEMs. As a result of these communications, Defendant is aware that understandings were reached with other DRAM manufacturers, the effect of which was to stabilize and raise the price of DRAM sold to certain OEMs. Defendant also participated in the conspiracy by his recommending to his superiors price ranges for the sale of DRAM to certain OEMs in the United States, based in part on pricing information obtained by him and other Elpida employees in communications with competitors. In addition, the Defendant had meetings and discussions and reached agreements with his coconspirators on how they would coordinate bids offered by Sun Microsystems in auctions on or about December 5, 2001 and March 26, 2002. The Defendant and his coconspirators submitted bid proposals to Sun Microsystems for bids on two separate 1 Gigabyte Next-Generation Module lots to achieve that result, including submitting complementary bids to ensure the success of their agreement.
During the relevant period, DRAM sold by one or more of the conspirators, equipment and supplies necessary to the production and distribution of DRAM, and payments for DRAM, traveled in interstate and foreign trade and commerce. The business activities of Defendant and his coconspirators in connection with the production and sale of DRAM affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce.
7.	Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines, along with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in determining and imposing Defendant's sentence. Defendant understands that the Guidelines determinations will be made by the Court by a preponderance of the evidence standard. 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 Defendant provides to the United States pursuant to this Plea Agreement will not be used to increase the volume of affected commerce attributable to Defendant or in determining the Defendant's applicable Guidelines range, except to the extent provided in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b). Defendant and the United States agree that the Court should consider the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, June 15, 2002, rather than at the time of sentencing, in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b). The United States and Defendant agree that the Guidelines may be applied and, if applied, the applicable sentencing guideline is U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1 with the following levels: a base level of 10; a one-level adjustment for participation in an agreement to submit noncompetitive bids, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(b)(1); a volume of commerce adjustment of plus 7, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(b)(2)(G); no role-in-the-offense adjustment under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, for a subtotal of 18; less a 3-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b), for a total offense level of 15. Further, the United States agrees to make a motion for downward departure pursuant to Paragraph 10 herein and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, recommending that Defendant be sentenced to the sentence agreed to below.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1)(C), the United States and Defendant agree that the appropriate disposition of this case is, and agree to recommend jointly that the Court impose, the following sentence ("the recommended sentence"): a criminal fine of $250,000, payable by Defendant to the United States in full before the fifteenth (15th) day after the date of judgment; a period of incarceration of seven months; no order of restitution; and no period of supervised release. Defendant understands that this Court will order him to pay a $100 special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A) in addition to any fine imposed. 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 outside of the Guidelines range 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.
The United States will not object to Defendant's request that (1) the Court make a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons that the Bureau of Prisons designate that Defendant be assigned to a Federal Minimum Security Camp (and specifically to the Atwater Prison Camp in Atwater, California) to serve his sentence of imprisonment, and (2) Defendant be released on his own personal recognizance following the imposition of sentence to allow him to self-surrender to the designated institution on a specified date.
9. The United States and Defendant agree that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1(b), Defendant should not be ordered to pay restitution in light of the civil cases filed against Elpida, Defendant's former employer, including In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. M-02-1486-PJH, MDL No. 1486, consolidated in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, which potentially provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages.
If this Court does not accept the recommended sentence, Defendant will be free to withdraw his guilty plea (Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(5) and (d)). If Defendant withdraws his 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 Defendant in any criminal or civil proceeding, except as otherwise provided in Fed. R. Evid. 410. In addition, should the Court not accept the Plea Agreement and should Defendant then withdraw his guilty plea, the United States agrees that it will dismiss the Information, without prejudice to the United States' right to indict Defendant on the charge contained in the Information and any other related charges. In addition, Defendant agrees that, if he withdraws his guilty plea pursuant to this subparagraph of the Plea Agreement, the statute of limitations period for any Relevant Offense, as defined in Paragraph 14 below, will be tolled for the period between the date of the signing of the Plea Agreement and the date Defendant withdrew his guilty plea or for a period of sixty (60) days after the date of the signing of the Plea Agreement, whichever is greater.
15. Defendant understands that he may be subject to administrative action by federal, state, or foreign 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 Defendant as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative action, if any, to take.
16. Defendant has reviewed all legal and factual aspects of this case with his attorney and is fully satisfied with his attorney's legal representation. Defendant has thoroughly reviewed this Plea Agreement with his attorney and has received satisfactory explanations from his attorney concerning each paragraph of this Plea Agreement and alternatives available to Defendant other than entering into this Plea Agreement. After conferring with his attorney and considering all available alternatives, Defendant has made a knowing and voluntary decision to enter into this Plea Agreement.
17. 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 Defendant as to whether this Court will accept or reject the recommendations contained within this Plea Agreement.
18. Defendant agrees that, should the United States determine in good faith, during the period that any Federal Proceeding is pending, that Defendant has failed to provide full and truthful cooperation, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, or has otherwise violated any provision of this Plea Agreement,the United States will notify Defendant or his counsel in writing by personal or overnight delivery or facsimile transmission, and may also notify his counsel by telephone, of its intention to void any of its obligations under this Plea Agreement (except its obligations under this paragraph), and Defendant 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. 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.Defendant agrees that, in the event that the United States is released from its obligations under this Plea Agreement and brings criminal charges against Defendant for any Relevant Offense, 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.
19. Defendant understands and agrees that in any further prosecution of him resulting from the release of the United States from its obligations under this Plea Agreement based on Defendant's violation of the Plea Agreement, any documents, statements, information, testimony, or evidence provided by him to attorneys or agents of the United States, federal grand juries, or courts, and any leads derived therefrom, may be used against him in any such further prosecution. In addition, Defendant unconditionally waives his right to challenge the use of such evidence in any such further prosecution, notwithstanding the protections of Fed. R. Evid. 410.
20. This Plea Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the United States and Defendant concerning the disposition of the criminal charge in this case. This Plea Agreement cannot be modified except in writing, signed by the United States and Defendant.
22. 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: Dec. 4, 2006 Respectfully submitted,
D. James Sogas
Leland B. Altschuler (CSBN 81459)
Tel: (650) 328-7917
Fax: (650) 327-9151
Download 220398.pdf
Download 220398.wpd