Opinion ID: 205321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plea Agreement and the Judgment of Conviction

Text: In March 2006, pursuant to a plea agreement dated March 9, 2006 (the Plea Agreement or Agreement), Pescatore pleaded guilty to one count of the Chop Shop Indictment (count 22), which charged him with owning, operating, maintaining, or controlling a chop shop, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2322. Pescatore admitted that, in that operation from March 1987 through June 14, 2004, he engaged in receiving stolen motor vehicle parts that were used to rebuild damaged motor vehicles (Plea Hearing Transcript, March 9, 2006 (Plea Tr.), at 19-20) and hired employees to take apart, rebuild, and sell such vehicles ( id. at 21). The scheme also involved, inter alia, altering and removing vehicle identification numbers so that stolen cars could be sold to unwitting customers. ( See id. at 22). The Plea Agreement was designed to settle not only the Chop Shop Indictment charges but also the civil forfeiture action and the punishment to be imposed for the three counts on which Pescatore was convicted in the extortion case. The advisory-Guidelines-recommended range of imprisonment for his chop shop and extortion offenses was 188-235 months. In the Agreement, the government agreed to drop the remaining 50-odd counts alleged against Pescatore in the Chop Shop Indictment and agreed that an appropriate total prison term for the chop shop offense and the extortion offenses would be 132 months. ( See Plea Agreement ¶¶ 4-5, 7.) In addition to agreeing to plead guilty to count 22 of the Chop Shop Indictment, Pescatore agreed to, inter alia, pay restitution of no less than $3 million: The count [to which Pescatore agreed to plead guilty] carries the following statutory penalties: . . . . e. Restitution: In an amount to be determined by the Court, but no less than $3 million. The parties agree that restitution with respect to the defendant's tax liabilities may be ordered by the Court (18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A). (Plea Agreement ¶ 1.e.). The final sentence of this provision applied to Pescatore's federal tax liabilities but became moot, as Pescatore paid that debt prior to being sentenced. In settlement of the civil forfeiture action, Pescatore agreed to forfeit $2.5 million in cash, plus real estate ( see id. ¶ 9). With respect to the assets to be forfeited, the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York (USAO or Office) agreed to recommend that the Department of Justice (DOJ or Department) grant restoration, relieving Pescatore of all or part of his restitution obligation: The Office will recommend that any net proceeds derived from the sale of the Forfeited Assets be made available to eligible victims, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(e), 28 C.F.R. Pt. 9 and Attorney General Order No. 2088-97 (June 14, 1997), it being understood that the Office has authority only to recommend and that the final decision whether to grant such relief rests with the Department of Justice, which will make its decision in accordance with applicable law. ( Id. ¶ 17.) Pescatore was sentenced some 2 1/2 years after his March 2006 plea of guilty. At the October 24, 2008 sentencing hearing, Pescatore informed the court that, in the interim, he had timely turned over many millions of dollars in assets (worth $9 million, see Hearing Transcript, January 29, 2010, at 17, 18) in complete satisfaction of his forfeiture obligations, and he urged the district court to impose a prison term of no more than 132 months in accordance with the Plea Agreement. MR. STAMBOULIDIS [Pescatore's then-counsel]: . . . . We had entered an agreement with the government that's documented in that written plea agreement. We stand here with the government with little if any disagreement as to what should happen here today. As we indicated to the court in the plea agreement, and at the time of the plea the parties, the government and Mr. Pescatore, are asking for a concurrent sentence on both matters. . . ., . . . . We obviously are here to ask for the court'sto honor and accept the plea, which I believe you indicated in words or substance that you have no problem with, but obviously now that you have the benefit of a presentence report and much more information than you had then to make up your mind. (Sentencing Transcript, October 24, 2008 (Sentencing Tr.), at 3-4.) The court indicated that it was prepared to sentence Pescatore to, inter alia, 132 months' imprisonment in accordance with the Plea Agreement, but it expressed concern that discussion in the PSR about 180 months in custody as the agreed upon amounts ( id. at 11) could prove confusing to the Bureau of Prisons. Pescatore and the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) agreed that it would be appropriate that the PSR be amended to match the Plea Agreement. ( See id. at 12-14.) The record does not indicate that any other objection had been made to the PSR. With regard to restitution, the government asked the court to order payment of $3 million in accordance with the Plea Agreement, and Pescatore reminded the court that the USAO had agreed to recommend restoration: [AUSA] GATZ: . . . . I just ask the court to enter a restitution amount in the amount of $3 million as per the plea agreement, and the government does stand by its agreement to recommend concurrent sentences on both of the matters. . . . . MR. STAMBOULIDIS: With respect to Mr. Pescatore being ordered to pay any more money,. . . . I just want to remind the court this man paid millions of dollars in forfeiture, agreed-upon forfeiture, ahead of schedule in many instances, as I indicated, and we had an understanding and I would ask the court to keep that in mind when it orders restitution that the forfeited moneys, the U.S. Attorney's Office was going to make a recommendation to whoever the people are in Washington, main justice or whoever they are called, the people in Washington consider applying any forfeiture money he already paid in, including giving over his house and millions of dollars on top of that, to be applied to any restitution. THE COURT: If it's within the parameters. I think they would regard it as supplement, any amount ordered here of the $3 million forfeiture [ sic ], which the government is seeking. I don't think they have to take it into account what's been paid heretofore. I may be wrong, Mr. Stamboulidis, but I think that's right. MR. STAMBOULIDIS: They don't have to, but they should and, I think, in many cases they do. MS. GATZ: Your Honor, as per the agreement the government negotiated it and we will stand by it. We will recommend that the $3 million restitution be taken from the prior forfeiture. However, I told Mr. Stamboulidis and the defendant is aware, we cannot require them to do that. We make the recommendation and they consider that. (Sentencing Tr. 14-16.) The government asked the court to order that the $3 million in restitution be paid in full by the close of the year 2009 ( id. at 21), a delay of some 14 months in light of the restoration recommendation to be made by the USAO to the DOJ. Pescatore asked that the due date for payment be delayed for at least three years rather than 14 months, so that he could receive credit for restitution payments that would be made by codefendants in the interim. ( See id. at 21-24.) The government opposed that request, stating that Pescatore's victims had been calling . . . for the past five years asking for their restitution. ( Id. at 23.) The court granted the government's request and ordered that the restitution be paid on or before December 31, 2009. ( See id. at 23-24.) A judgment was entered sentencing Pescatore in accordance with the Plea Agreement. It ordered, inter alia, that $3,000,000.00 in restitution should be paid in full by the close of the year 2009. Judgment dated November 1, 2008, at 4, 5. The restitution order did not state, or otherwise incorporate, the names of the victims to whom restitution was to be made or the amount of loss sustained by each victim. In January 2009, the government asked the court to correct the judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 36, in order to expressly incorporate the Pre-Sentence Report (PSR) dated February 21, 2008, at pages 23-46 and 58-60, which identifies the victims and the actual losses incurred by each victim as a result of said schemes. The reason for this is, in order for the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Department of Justice to process the restoration request submitted by this office pursuant to the applicable regulations, the judgment must specifically identify the victims. In that it was the parties' and the Court's intention that the victims identified in the PSR be included in the judgment, the government respectfully submits that the failure to do so was a clerical error which may be corrected at any time. (Letter from AUSA Kathleen Nandan to Judge Piatt dated January 28, 2009 (Government's January 2009 Letter), at 1-2.) On January 30, 2009, the district court, noting the absence of any objection, granted the government's request by endorsement. (The judgment with PSR pages appended is hereinafter referred to as the Judgment or amended Judgment; the appended PSR pages are hereinafter referred to as the Loss Chart or PSR Loss Chart.)