Free Plea Agreement - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cr-00145-GIVIS Document 27 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :
Plaintiff,
v. Criminal Action No. 07-145-GMS
JOAN SANTIAGO,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF PLEA AGREEM
Pursuant to discussions between the United States of America, by and through its
attorneys, Colm F. Connolly, United States Attorney for the District of Delaware, and Keith M.
Rosen, Assistant United States Attorney, and the defendant, Joan Santiago, by and through his
attorney, James Brose, Esquire, the following agreement is hereby entered into by the respective
parties:
1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts I and II of the pending Indictment,
charging him with knowingly possessing with intent to transfer unlawfully five or more
identification documents (Count I), in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ l028(a)(3), (b)(2)(B); and
knowingly possessing a social security card with the intent to sell it for the purpose of obtaining a
benefit to which he is not entitled (Count II), in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 408(a)(7)(C). Each of
the above counts carry maximum penalties of 5 years of imprisonment, a $250,000 fine, or both,
three years of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
2. The defendant understands that if there were a trial on Count I, the Government
would have to prove: (1) that from on or about January 2007 through April 2007, the defendant
knowingly possessed five or more identification documents; (2) that those documents were not

Case 1:07-cr—00145-GIVIS Document 27 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 2 of 4
issued. lawfully for the use of the defendant; (3) that the defendant possessed the documents with
the intent to transfer those documents unlawfully; and (4) that those documents appeared to have
been issued under the authority of the United States, the possession. of those documents affected
interstate commerce, or the documents were transported in the mail in the course of the
unauthorized transfer.
3. The defendant understands that if there were a trial on Count II, the government
would have to prove: (l) that from on or about January 2007 through April 2007, the defendant
knowingly: (2) possessed a Social Security card; (3) with the intent to sell it; (4) for the purpose
of obtaining for himself ro another person a payment or other benefit for which he or that other
person was not entitled.
4. The defendant knowingly admits that he is guilty of the offenses charged in
Counts I and II, including the conduct alleged in paragraphs 1-3 of the Indictment.
5. The defendant agrees to pay the $200 special assessment at the time of sentencing.
6. Provided that the United States does not subsequently learn of conduct bythe
defendant inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility, the United States agrees that in
consideration of the defendant’s timely guilty plea, the Government will not oppose a two-point
reduction in the Offense Level for the defendant’s affirmative acceptance of responsibility.
Further, if the Court determines that the defendant’s offense level, prior to the application of the
aforementioned two-point reduction, is 16 or greater, the Government will move for an
additional one-point reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3El .l(b).
7. At or about the time of sentencing, the government will move to dismiss the
remaining count (Count III) of the Indictment.
2

Case 1:07-cr—00145-GIVIS Document 27 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 3 of 4
8. The United States explicitly retains the right to make whatever recommendations
at the time of sentencing that it believes are appropriate and to defend the rulings of the District
Court upon appeal.
9. 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
within 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
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.
10. It is further agreed by the parties that this Memorandum supersedes all prior
promises, representations, and statements of the undersigned parties; that this Memorandum may
be modified only in writing 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 :07-cr-00145-GIVIS Document 27 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 4 of 4
have no effect whatsoever, unless they comport with the subsequent written modification
requirements of this paragraph.
COLM F. CONNOLLY
A United States Attorney
__ ji —-»-.. ..\ P
,- -¢--» . Q, ,<{,é;//’ BY: /’{’/g"/"”*"
<_/- eaae Joan Saintiago Keith M. Rosen
Defendant Assistant United States Attorney
V Q /-`\ /
Jam sErose, Esquire Dated: 2/ 7/7 / Og
/
Atpriey for Defendant
M ,4
AND NOW, this L7 day of & __, 2008, the foregoing
Memorandum of Plea Agreement is hereby (accepted) ( this Court.
GREGORY M. SLEET ;
Chie Judge
United States District Court
F I L E D
D§‘?¤}%!?l£*é%2E§’»$E2§E
4

Case 1:07-cr-00145-GMS

Document 27

Filed 02/27/2008

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:07-cr-00145-GMS

Document 27

Filed 02/27/2008

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:07-cr-00145-GMS

Document 27

Filed 02/27/2008

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:07-cr-00145-GMS

Document 27

Filed 02/27/2008

Page 4 of 4