Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f236200/236256.htm
Timestamp: 2014-12-21 11:30:58
Document Index: 776306886

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 3742', '§ 2241', '§ 2255', '§ 3742', '§ 208', '§ 371', '§ 201', '§ 3143']

Amended Plea Agreement : U.S. v. Joel M. Gostomelsky
EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOEL M. GOSTOMELSKY, )
) Criminal No. 1:08 CR 519 Filed: July 21, 2008 Violations: 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 201(c)(1)(B) AMENDED PLEA AGREEMENT The United States of America and Joel M. Gostomelsky ("Defendant"), hereby enter into the following Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Fed. R. Crim. P."): RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT 1. The Defendant understands his rights: to be represented by an attorney; to be charged by Indictment;
to plead not guilty to any criminal charge brought against him; to have a trial by jury, at which he would be presumed not guilty of the charges and the United States would have to prove every essential element of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be found guilty; to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him and to subpoena witnesses in his defense at trial; not to be compelled to incriminate himself;
to appeal his conviction, if he is found guilty; and to appeal the imposition of sentence against him. AGREEMENT TO PLEAD GUILTY AND WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS 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 within or below the Government's Sentencing Guidelines calculations set forth in Paragraph 13 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). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), 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 Illinois, Eastern Division. 3. Count One of the Information will charge Defendant with participating in a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, that is, to willfully violate 18 U.S.C. § 208(a) by agreeing to allow Individual A (an employee of the executive branch of the United States Government) to participate personally and substantially as a Government employee in a matter in which Individual A and his family had a substantial financial interest from in or about March 2000 through at least April 2007, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Count Two of the Information will additionally charge Defendant with directly or indirectly receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive or accept things of value personally in the form of gratuities for or because of official acts performed or to be performed by Defendant within five years of the date of this Plea Agreement in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(B). 4. Defendant, pursuant to the terms of this Plea Agreement, will plead guilty to the criminal charges described in Paragraph 3 above and will make a factual admission of guilt to the Court in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, as set forth in Paragraph 5 below. The United States agrees that at the arraignment it will stipulate to the release of Defendant on his personal recognizance, with permission to travel outside of this jurisdiction, subject to the condition that Defendant not commit a Federal, State, or local crime, pending the sentencing hearing in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143. FACTUAL BASIS FOR OFFENSES CHARGED 5. Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence sufficient to prove the following facts: Count I: Conspiracy to Commit Acts Affecting a Personal Financial Interest For purposes of this Plea Agreement as it relates to Count One of the Information, the "relevant period" is that period beginning in or about March 2000 and continuing through at least approximately April 2007. During the relevant period, Defendant was employed as the Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs' Consolidated Mail Outpatient Pharmacy in Hines, Illinois ("Hines CMOP"). The Hines CMOP employs full-time or "specialist" pharmacists, part-time pharmacists, pharmacist technicians, and pharmacist aides, many of whom are not government employees, but who are instead contracted from outside staffing agencies on a temporary basis. During the relevant period, Individual A was employed as the Associate Director of the Hines CMOP. Individual A reported to, and was directly supervised by Defendant. Individual A had input into, as well influence over, the contracting process and purchase order decisions of the Hines CMOP as they pertained to temporary pharmacist staffing.
Early in 2000, Defendant agreed to Individual A's proposal that the Hines CMOP fulfill its temporary pharmacist staffing needs by utilizing the services of Company A, a temporary staffing company that would be owned by Individual B, who is Individual A's spouse, based on Individual A's representation that it would be less expensive. Company A, however, was not yet incorporated and Defendant understood that Company A was not approved as a General Services Administration Schedule holder for providing temporary staffing services. Individual A therefore recommended to Defendant that the Hines CMOP contract with a second company, "Company B," which would then subcontract temporary pharmacist staffing services back to Company A. On or about May 17, 2000, prior to the award of any purchase orders or subcontracts for temporary pharmacist staffing to Company A or Company B at the Hines CMOP, Defendant sent an e-mail to his superior, the National CMOP Director, seeking clearance for Company A to do business with the Hines CMOP, in light of the fact that Individual B (Individual A's spouse) was the purported owner of Company A and Individual A was employed by the government as the Associate Director of the Hines CMOP. Defendant misrepresented in the e-mail that "[Individual A] is not involved in the ordering of temporary pharmacists." Defendant omitted the material fact that Individual A would interview and hire the pharmacists employed by Company A to work at the Hines CMOP. At that time, Defendant knew that Individual A would be interviewing and hiring Company A's pharmacists. On or about May 18, 2000, the National CMOP Director responded to Defendant via e-mail and cleared the conflict of interest, stating: "As long as [Individual A] isn't directly involved in [Company A] and you insulate him from responsibility of contact with the company from the CMOP side, I do not see a problem . . . ." On or about June 9, 2000, shortly after receiving clearance from