Source: https://www.justice.gov/atr/case-document/plea-agreement-schaefer
Timestamp: 2017-09-23 22:01:11
Document Index: 502733522

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 2255', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 1', '§ 3013', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 3553', '§ 6', '§ 3142', '§ 240']

Plea Agreement (Schaefer) | ATR | Department of Justice
Plea Agreement (Schaefer)
Case No. CR 04-0397 PJH
The United States of America and Peter Schaefer ("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 waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(h) 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 him in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendant agrees to have his sentence determined under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") and waives all constitutional challenges to the validity of the U.S.S.G. Defendant waives any right he may have to have facts that determine his Guidelines fine and imprisonment ranges under the U.S.S.G. (including any facts used to determine his offense level, volume of commerce, any specific offense characteristic or other enhancement or adjustment under the U.S.S.G.) alleged in an indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant also waives the right to appeal the imposition of the sentence against him, so long as the sentence imposed is consistent with the recommended sentence contained in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement. Defendant also waives the right to file any collateral attack on his conviction or sentence, including a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, at any time after he is sentenced, except for a claim that his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel was violated. 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 July 1, 1999, and continuing until on or about June 15, 2002, Infineon Technologies AG ("Infineon AG"), including its United States-based subsidiary Infineon Technologies North America Corp. ("Infineon NA"), and co-conspirators 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, an employee of Infineon NA, joined and participated in the charged conspiracy from on or about April 26, 2001, until on or about June 15, 2002.
(a) For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the "relevant period" is that period from on or about April 26, 2001, to on or about June 15, 2002. During the relevant period, Defendant was an employee of Infineon NA, an entity organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. During at least a portion of the relevant period, Defendant's title at Infineon NA was Vice President for Marketing, Sales & Logistics for Memory Products.
(b) DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product. DRAM provides high-speed storage and retrieval of electronic information in personal computers, servers, and other devices. In the course of his employment for Infineon NA, during at least a portion of the relevant period, Defendant had certain responsibilities relating to the marketing and sale of DRAM in the United States and also had certain supervisory responsibilities over other employees who had certain responsibilities relating to the sale of DRAM in the United States.
(c) During the relevant period, Defendant participated, to the extent described below, in a pre-existing conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere among certain DRAM producers and their officers and employees. The primary purpose of the conspiracy was to fix 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. In furtherance of the conspiracy, Defendant participated in communications with representatives of other DRAM producers and sellers during which information on pricing was exchanged. The purpose of these communications was to reach an understanding, which was ultimately achieved, to raise or stabilize the price of DRAM to certain OEMs.
(d) In addition, during the relevant period Defendant was aware of the existence of the conspiracy among the employees of Infineon NA, and he consented to the participation of one or more of his subordinate employees in that conspiracy.
(e) 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 commerce. The business activities of Defendant and his co-conspirators 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.
(f) Acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were carried out within the Northern District of California. Furthermore, DRAM affected by this conspiracy was sold by one or more of the conspirators to customers in this District.
5. Defendant understands that the maximum penalty which may be imposed against him upon conviction for a violation of Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act is:
7. Sentencing for the offense to be charged will be conducted pursuant to the U.S.S.G. Manual in effect on the day of sentencing. 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 Defendant's applicable sentencing guidelines range, except to the extent provided in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b). The United States and Defendant agree that the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines may be applied and, if applied, the applicable sentencing guideline is U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1 with a base level of 10, a volume of commerce adjustment of plus seven pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(b)(2)(G); for a total of 17, 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 14. 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.
8. (a) 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, a sentence requiring that Defendant pay to the United States a criminal fine of $250,000, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1, payable in full before the thirtieth (30th) day after the date of judgment; a period of incarceration of 120 days; no order of restitution; and no period of supervised release ("the recommended sentence"). Defendant understands that this Court will order him to pay a $100 special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A) and U.S.S.G. § 5E1.3 in addition to any fine imposed.
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 Infineon NA, Defendant's employer, including In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. M-02-1486-PJH, MDL No. 1486, in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, and DRAM Cases, No. CJC-03-004265, in the Superior Court, San Francisco, California, which potentially provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages.
10. The United States and Defendant agree that the applicable Sentencing Guidelines fine and incarceration ranges exceed the fine and term of imprisonment contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 above. Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of Defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 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. § 5K1.1, for a downward departure from the Guidelines sentence in this case. The motion for downward departure is based on cooperation that has already occurred and any additional cooperation that may occur prior to sentencing. Furthermore, the United States will request that this Court impose the fine and term of imprisonment contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement because of Defendant's substantial assistance in the government's investigation and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal law in the DRAM industry.
11. The United States and Defendant jointly submit that this Plea Agreement, the record that will be created by the United States and Defendant at the plea and sentencing hearing, will provide sufficient information concerning Defendant, the offense charged in this case, and Defendant's role in the offense to enable the meaningful exercise of sentencing authority by this Court under 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The United States will not object to Defendant's request that this Court accept Defendant's plea of guilty and impose sentence on an expedited schedule as early as the date of arraignment, based upon the record provided by Defendant and the United States, under the provisions of Rule 32(b)(1), Fed. R. Crim. P., U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1, and Criminal Local Rule 32-1(b). The Court's denial of the request to impose sentence on an expedited schedule will not void this Plea Agreement. Should the Court deny Defendant's request to impose sentence on an expedited schedule, the United States agrees that, at the initial appearance or arraignment, it will recommend the release of Defendant on his personal recognizance and without bond, under 18 U.S.C. § 3142, without restriction as to travel, pending the sentencing hearing in this case.
(b) 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.For a period of three (3) consecutive days following such a withdrawal of the guilty plea under this subparagraph, the United States shall take no action, based upon either a Relevant Offense or any actual or alleged violation of the Plea Agreement, to revoke Defendant's release on his personal recognizance, to subject Defendant to service of process, arrest, or detention, or to prevent Defendant from departing the United States.
(a) producing in the United States and at other mutually agreed-upon locations all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents, and other non-privileged materials, wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, requested by attorneys and agents of the United States;
16. (a) Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of Defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and upon the Court's acceptance of Defendant's guilty plea and imposition of sentence in this case, the United States agrees not to seek to remove Defendant from the United States under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, based upon Defendant's guilty plea and conviction in this case, should Defendant apply for or obtain admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement not to seek to remove Defendant"). The agreement not to seek to remove Defendant is the equivalent of an agreement not to exclude Defendant from admission to the United States as a nonimmigrant or to deport Defendant from the United States. (Immigration and Nationality Act, § 240(e)(2)).
(b) The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice has consulted with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office of the United States Department of Homeland Security ("ICE"). The ICE, in consultation with the United States Department of State, has agreed to the inclusion in this Plea Agreement of this agreement not to seek to remove Defendant.
(c) So that Defendant will be able to obtain any nonimmigrant visa that he may need to travel to the United States, the ICE and the Visa Office of the United States Department of State, have concurred in the granting of a nonimmigrant waiver of Defendant's inadmissibility. This waiver will remain in effect so long as this agreement not to seek to remove Defendant remains in effect. While the waiver remains in effect, the Department of State will not deny Defendant's application for a nonimmigrant visa on the basis of Defendant's guilty plea and conviction in this case, and the ICE will not deny his application for admission as a nonimmigrant on the basis of his guilty plea and conviction in this case.
(d) This agreement not to seek to remove Defendant will remain in effect so long as Defendant:
is not convicted of any felony under the laws of the United States or any state, other than the conviction resulting from Defendant's guilty plea under this Plea Agreement or any conviction under the laws of any state resulting from conduct constituting an offense subject to this Plea Agreement; and
Defendant understands that should the Antitrust Division become aware that Defendant has violated any of these conditions, the Antitrust Division will notify the ICE. The ICE will then determine, in consultation with the Antitrust Division, whether to move to rescind this agreement not to seek to remove Defendant.
(e) Defendant agrees to notify the Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division should Defendant be convicted of any other felony under the laws of the United States or of any state.
(f) Should the United States rescind this agreement not to seek to remove Defendant because of Defendant's violation of a condition of this Plea Agreement, Defendant irrevocably waives his right to contest his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act on the basis of his guilty plea and conviction in this case, but retains his right to notice of removal proceedings.
DATED: November 25, 2004 Respectfully submitted,
Download 207251.pdf
Download 207251.wpd