Free Plea Agreement - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

r ~ Case 1 :06-cr-00079-GIVIS Document 23 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT l
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
Prarnarg E
v. Criminal Action No. 06-79-GMS
RITCHIE JACKSON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF PLEA AGREEMENT
Pursuant to discussions between the United States of America, by Colm F. Connolly,
United States Attomey for the District of Delaware, and Beth Moskow-Schnoll, Assistant United
States Attorney for the District of Delaware, and the defendant, Ritchie Jackson, by and through
his attorney, R. Kerry Kalmbach, Esquire, the following agreement is hereby entered into by the
respective parties:
1. The defendant, Ritchie Jackson, agrees to plead guilty to Counts Two and Three
of the Indictment. Count Two of the Indictment charges the defendant with bank fraud in
violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344 which carries a maximum penalty of 30
years imprisomnent, a $1,000,000 fine, 5 years supervised release and a $100 special assessment.
Count Three charges the defendant with aggravated identity theft in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1028A which carries a maximum penalty of a mandatory two year
consecutive term of incarceration, up to a $250,000 fine, one year supervised release, and a $100
special assessment.
2. The defendant understands that if there were a trial, the government would have to
prove the following elements with respect to Count Two of the Indictment, bank fraud in

_ . Case 1 :06-cr-00079-GIVIS Document 23 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 2 of 4
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344: (a) that on or about the dates set forth in the Indictment, there was
a scheme to obtain moneys under the custody and control of a bank; (b) that the defendant
executed the scheme with the intent to defraud the bank or with an intent to deceive the bank in
order to obtain from it money or other property; and (c) that at the time of the execution of the
scheme, the bank had its deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or FDIC.
The defendant further understands that if there were a trial, the government would have to prove
the following elements with respect to Count Three of the Information, aggravated identity theft
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A: (a) the defendant knowingly used, without lawful authority, a
means of identification of another person; and (b) the defendant used the means of identification
of another person during and in relation to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the bank fraud
statute.
3. The defendant admits that he is in fact guilty of the offenses described in
paragraph one.
4. The defendant understands that the District Court must consider the United States
Sentencing Guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) in determining an
appropriate sentence. At this stage (prior to the preparation of the pre-sentence report), the
defendant should expect that the Government will recommend that the Court impose a sentence
consistent with the sentencing range set forth by the sentencing guidelines. The defendant
understands, however, that the ultimate determination of an appropriate sentence will be up to the
sentencing judge. The Court may impose a sentence which exceeds, falls below, or is contained
within the sentencing range prescribed by the sentencing guidelines. The defendant expressly
acknowledges that if the Court imposes a sentence outside the range set forth in the sentencing
2

_ . Case 1 :06-cr-00079-GIVIS Document 23 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 3 of 4
guidelines, or otherwise different than the defendant expected, or contrary to the recommendation
of his attorney or the United States, the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea
on that basis.
5. Provided that the United States Attomey does not subsequently learn of conduct
by the defendant inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, at sentencing, (a) the United
States agrees not to contest a reduction under USSG §3El .l(a) based on the defendant’s conduct
to date; and (b) if the Court determines that the defendant’s offense level is 16 or higher, the
United States agrees to move for a three level reduction under USSG §3El .l(b) based on the
defendant’s conduct to date.
6. The defendant agrees to pay the $200 special assessment at the time of sentencing.
Should he fail to do so, the defendant agrees to voluntarily enter the United States Bureau of
Prisons’ administered program known as the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program through
which the Bureau of Prisons will collect a portion of the defendant’s prison salary and apply it on
the defendant’s behalf to the payment of the outstanding debt ordered.
7. At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees to move to dismiss Count One
of the Indictment returned against the defendant on July 13, 2006.
8. It is further agreed by the parties that this Memorandum supersedes all prior
promises, representations, and statements of the undersigned parties; that this Memorandiun may
be modified only in a written document signed by all the parties; and that any and all promises,
representations and statements made prior to or after this Memorandum are null and void and
3

_ _ Case 1:06-cr—00079-GIVIS Document 23 Filed 12/18/2007 Page 4 of 4
have no effect whatsoever, unless they comport with the subsequent written modification
requirements of this paragraph.
COLM F. CONNOLLY
United States Attorney ~. 7 q
Ritchie J aclgson ’ Beth Moskow-Schnoll
Defendant A Assistant United States Attomey
1;;;/
R. Ken·y Kalmbach
Attorney for Defendant
Dated: /6; 200 7
TR
AND NOW, this fé day of , 2007, the foregoing Memorandum of
Plea Agreement is hereby (accepted) (rejected)-by `s Court.
HO E GREGORY M. SLEET
Chie nited States District Court Judge
_ F I L E D
DEC l 8
u.s. msrmcr coum
msrmcr or ¤ELAw/me
4