thornton plea agreement
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
1/19
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
2/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
and provided by the Court, appear and plead guilty to counts one
and two of the indictment in United States v. Lemuel Thornton, CR
No. 11-22-DMG, which charges defendant with Conspiracy to Commit
Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, and MoneyLaundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).
b) Not contest facts agreed to in this agreement.
c) Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing
contained in this agreement.
d) Appear for all court appearances, surrender as
ordered for service of sentence, obey all conditions of any bond,
and obey any other ongoing court order in this matter.
e) Not commit any crime; however, offenses that would
be excluded for sentencing purposes under United States
Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Sentencing Guidelines)
4A1.2(c) are not within the scope of this agreement.
f) Be truthful at all times with Pretrial Services, the
United States Probation Office, and the Court.
g) Pay the applicable special assessments at or before
the time of sentencing unless defendant lacks the ability to pay
and prior to sentencing submits a completed financial statement
on a form to be provided by the USAO.
h) Not seek the discharge of any restitution
obligation, in whole or in part, in any present or future
bankruptcy proceeding.
THE USAOS OBLIGATIONS
3. The USAO agrees to:
a) Not contest facts agreed to in this agreement.
2
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:115
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
3/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
b) Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing
contained in this agreement.
c) At the time of sentencing, provided that defendant
demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for the offenses upto and including the time of sentencing, recommend a two-level
reduction in the applicable Sentencing Guidelines offense level,
pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1, and recommend and, if necessary,
move for an additional one-level reduction if available under
that section.
d) Recommend that defendant be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment no higher than the low end of the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range, provided that the offense level used
by the Court to determine that range is 20 or higher and provided
that the Court does not depart downward in offense level or
criminal history category. For purposes of this agreement, the
low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range is that defined by the
Sentencing Table in U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A.
NATURE OF THE OFFENSES
4. Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of
the crime charged in count one (violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1349), the following must be true:
a. Beginning in or about January 2006 and continuing
through in or about March 2006, there was an agreement between
two or more persons to commit wire fraud;
b. Defendant knowingly devised and participated in a
scheme or plan to defraud, or a scheme or plan for obtaining
money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises;
3
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:116
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
4/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
c. The statements made or facts omitted as part of
the scheme were material; that is, they had a natural tendency to
influence, or were capable of influencing, a person to part with
money or property;d. The defendant acted with the intent to defraud;
that is, the intent to deceive and cheat;
e. In carrying out or attempting to carry out an
essential part of the scheme, defendant used, or caused to be
used, the transmission of any writing, signal, or sound by means
of a wire communication in interstate commerce;
f. Defendant became a member of the conspiracy
knowing of its object and intending to help accomplish it.
Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of this
offense as described in count one of the indictment.
5. Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of
the crime charged in count two (violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)), the following must be
true:
a. Defendant conducted a financial transaction
involving property that represented the proceeds of wire fraud;
b. Defendant knew that the property represented the
proceeds of wire fraud; and,
c. Defendant knew that the transaction was designed
in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location,
source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of wire fraud.
Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of this
offense as described in count two of the indictment.
//
4
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:117
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
5/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PENALTIES AND RESTITUTION
6. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum
sentence that the Court can impose for a violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1349, is: 20 years imprisonment; a3-year period of supervised release; a fine of $250,000 or twice
the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense,
whichever is greatest; and a mandatory special assessment of
$100.
7. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum
sentence that the Court can impose for a violation of Title 18,
United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), is: 20 years
imprisonment, a 3-year period of supervised release; a fine of
$500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the
transaction, whichever is greatest; and a mandatory special
assessment of $100.
8. Defendant understands, therefore, that the total maximum
sentence for all offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty
is: 40 years imprisonment; a 3-year period of supervised release;
a fine of $750,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss
resulting from the offenses, whichever is greatest; and a
mandatory special assessment of $200.
9. Defendant understands that defendant will be required to
pay full restitution to the victims of the offenses. Defendant
agrees that, in return for the USAOs compliance with its
obligations under this agreement, the amount of restitution is
not restricted to the amounts alleged in the counts to which
defendant is pleading guilty and may include losses arising from
charges not prosecuted pursuant to this agreement as well as all
5
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:118
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
6/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
relevant conduct in connection with those counts and charges.
The parties currently believe that the applicable amount of
restitution is approximately $800,541.57, but recognize and agree
that this amount could change based on facts that come to theattention of the parties prior to sentencing.
10. Defendant understands that supervised release is a
period of time following imprisonment during which defendant will
be subject to various restrictions and requirements. Defendant
understands that if defendant violates one or more of the
conditions of any supervised release imposed, defendant may be
returned to prison for all or part of the term of supervised
release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in
the term of supervised release, which could result in defendant
serving a total term of imprisonment greater than the statutory
maximum stated above.
11. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty,
defendant may be giving up valuable government benefits and
valuable civic rights, such as the right to vote, the right to
possess a firearm, the right to hold office, and the right to
serve on a jury. Defendant understands that once the court
accepts defendants guilty plea, it will be a federal felony for
defendant to possess a firearm or ammunition. Defendant
understands that the conviction in this case may also subject
defendant to various other collateral consequences, including but
not limited to revocation of probation, parole, or supervised
release in another case and suspension or revocation of a
professional license. Defendant understands that unanticipated
collateral consequences will not serve as grounds to withdraw
6
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 6 of 19 Page ID #:119
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
7/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defendants guilty plea.
12. Defendant understands that, if defendant is not a
United States citizen, the felony conviction in this case may
subject defendant to: removal, also known as deportation, whichmay, under some circumstances, be mandatory; denial of
citizenship; and denial of admission to the United States in the
future. The court cannot, and defendants attorney also may not
be able to, advise defendant fully regarding the immigration
consequences of the felony conviction in this case. Defendant
understands that unexpected immigration consequences will not
serve as grounds to withdraw defendants guilty plea.
FACTUAL BASIS
13. Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of
the offenses to which defendant is agreeing to plead guilty.
Defendant and the USAO agree to the statement of facts provided
below and agree that this statement of facts is sufficient to
support pleas of guilty to the charges described in this
agreement and to establish the Sentencing Guidelines factors set
forth in paragraph 15 below but is not meant to be a complete
recitation of all facts relevant to the underlying criminal
conduct or all facts known to either party that relate to that
conduct.
The Gray Fox Property
In or about January 2006, defendant THORNTON, with the
assistance of individuals known and unknown, prepared a Uniform
Residential Loan Application (URLA) for himself and his wife,
K.T., to purchase a house at an address on Gray Fox Drive in
Canyon Lake, California (the "Gray Fox Property"). The URLA that
7
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 7 of 19 Page ID #:120
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
8/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
defendant prepared contained materially false statements about
employment, income, and the use of the property. Defendant knew
that said URLA would be submitted to a mortgage lender to obtain
monetary funds from the mortgage lender for the purchase of theGray Fox Property. Specifically, the URLA showed that the
property was to be the buyers primary residence when in fact the
Gray Fox Property was to be an investment property.
Additionally, K.T.s employment was listed as a loan processor
earning $11,500 a month, when in fact K.T. was a notary and her
monthly income was substantially less than $11,500 month.
Defendants employment title was misstated as a finance manager
for an automobile company, earning a salary of $5,900 monthly
with monthly bonuses totaling $4,000, when in fact he was a
salesperson for the automobile company, earned substantially less
than $5,900 monthly, and did not earn monthly bonuses of $4,000.
In or about January 2006, individuals known and unknown to the
Grand Jury submitted the URLA to lender Residential Mortgage &
Investment, Inc. ("RMI") in Mission Viejo, California.
On or about January 27, 2006, co-conspirator K.J. provided
to La Rue Escrow, Inc., in Sun City, California, a demand letter
from a fictitious company called Johnson Construction to be used
in the purchase of the Gray Fox Property. The demand letter
stated: "This is a formal demand in the amount of $164,100 to be
disbursed to Johnson Construction to be used for upgrades,
repairs, and landscaping for the property located at xxxxx Gray
Fox Drive, Canyon Lake, CA 92587." On or about February 6, 2006,
co-conspirator K.J. and other co-conspirators caused La Rue
Escrow, Inc. to send approximately $164,100 by interstate wire
8
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 8 of 19 Page ID #:121
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
9/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
transfer to an account controlled by co-conspirator K.J. at Bank
of America in Riverside, California, for the payment to Johnson
Construction.
On or about February 6, 2006, in Riverside County,California, co-conspirator K.J. wrote and gave a check to
defendant in the amount of $164,100. Defendant accepted this
check from co-conspirator K.J., knowing that the money
represented the proceeds of the above-described scheme.
Defendant also knew that the purpose of co-conspirator K.J.s
writing this check to defendant was to conceal and disguise the
nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds
of the scheme to defraud RMI at the time of the purchase of the
Gray Fox Property.
On or about January 2, 2007, defendant THORNTON sold the
Gray Fox Property to D.T. Defendant THORNTON asked D.T. to sign
documents to purchase the house so that it would not go into
foreclosure. Upon reviewing the URLA for the Gray Fox Property,
D.T. said that the $24,000 monthly income listed in the URLA was
false, as D.T. was unemployed at the time and had been for
approximately six years prior. D.T. also stated that the credit
union accounts, assets, and IRA listed in the URLA were all
false.
On or about January 5, 2007, D.T. grant deeded the Gray Fox
Property to Property Division Inc., defendant THORNTONs company.
The Continental Drive Property
In or about February 2006, co-conspirator K.J., with the
assistance of individuals known and unknown to the Grand Jury,
prepared a URLA for co-conspirator K.J.s wife, A.J., to purchase
9
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 9 of 19 Page ID #:122
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
10/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a house at an address on Continental Drive in Canyon Lake,
California (the Continental Drive Property) that contained a
materially false statement about A.J.s employment, knowing that
said URLA would be submitted to a mortgage lender to obtainmonetary funds from the mortgage lender for the purchase of the
Continental Drive Property. Specifically, the URLA represented
that A.J. was a Field Manager at Harbor Torch, when in fact she
did not work at Harbor Torch.
In or about February 2006, A.J. signed the URLA prepared for
the purchase of the Continental Drive Property, at the direction
of co-conspirator K.J. Co-conspirator K.J. knew that the URLA
contained materially false statements about A.J.s employment.
Around the same time, individuals known and unknown to the Grand
Jury, at the direction of co-conspirator K.J., submitted the URLA
to lender The Mortgage Store Financial (The Mortgage Store).
On or about January 27, 2006, defendant and other co-
conspirators provided to Golden State Escrow, in Sun City,
California, a demand letter from a sham company called Thorntons
Property Development to be used in the purchase of the
Continental Drive Property. The demand letter stated: This is a
formal written demand in the amount of $207,899 to be disbursed
to Thorntons Property Development/in care of Lemuel Thornton to
be used for upgrades, repairs, and landscaping for the property
located at xxxxx Continental Dr., Canyon Lake, CA 92587. This
Money is due and payable at COE. No money is due if escrow falls
through. Wiring instructions to follow.
On or about March 6, 2006, defendant and other
co-conspirators caused Golden State Escrow to send approximately
10
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 10 of 19 Page ID #:123
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
11/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
$207,889 by interstate wire transfer to an account controlled by
defendant at Bank of America in Moreno Valley, California, for
the payment to Thorntons Property Development.
On or about March 7, 2006, in Riverside County, California,
defendant gave a check signed by defendants wife K.T. to co-
conspirator K.J. in the amount of $192,183.
SENTENCING FACTORS
14. Defendant understands that in determining defendants
sentence the Court is required to calculate the applicable
Sentencing Guidelines range and to consider that range, possible
departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and the other
sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Defendant
understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,
that defendant cannot have any expectation of receiving a
sentence within the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, and
that after considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the other
3553(a) factors, the Court will be free to exercise its
discretion to impose any sentence it finds appropriate up to the
maximum set by statute for the crimes of conviction.
15. Defendant and the USAO agree to the following
applicable Sentencing Guidelines factors:
Base Offense Level : 7 U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(a)(1)U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(a)(1)
Specific OffenseCharacteristics
Conviction under : +2 U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(2)(B)18 U.S.C. 1956
////
11
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 11 of 19 Page ID #:124
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
12/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Defendant and the USAO reserve the right to argue that additional
specific offense characteristics -- for example, loss amount
under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)-- adjustments, and departures under
the Sentencing Guidelines are appropriate.16. Defendant understands that there is no agreement as to
defendants criminal history or criminal history category.
17. Defendant and the USAO reserve the right to argue for a
sentence outside the sentencing range established by the
Sentencing Guidelines based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.
3553(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), and (a)(7).
WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
18. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty,
defendant gives up the following rights:
a) The right to persist in a plea of not guilty.
b) The right to a speedy and public trial by jury.
c) The right to be represented by counsel and if
necessary have the court appoint counsel - at trial. Defendant
understands, however, that, defendant retains the right to be
represented by counsel and if necessary have the court appoint
counsel at every other stage of the proceeding.
d) The right to be presumed innocent and to have the
burden of proof placed on the government to prove defendant
guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
e) The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses
against defendant.
f) The right to testify and to present evidence in
opposition to the charges, including the right to compel the
attendance of witnesses to testify.
12
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 12 of 19 Page ID #:125
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
13/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
g) The right not to be compelled to testify, and, if
defendant chose not to testify or present evidence, to have that
choice not be used against defendant.
h) Any and all rights to pursue any affirmativedefenses, Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment claims, and other
pretrial motions that have been filed or could be filed.
WAIVER OF APPEAL OF CONVICTION
19. Defendant understands that, with the exception of an
appeal based on a claim that defendants guilty pleas were
involuntary, by pleading guilty defendant is waiving and giving
up any right to appeal defendants convictions on the offenses to
which defendant is pleading guilty.
LIMITED MUTUAL WAIVER OF APPEAL OF SENTENCE
20. Defendant agrees that, provided the Court imposes a
term of imprisonment within or below the range corresponding to
an offense level of 20 and the criminal history category
calculated by the Court, defendant gives up the right to appeal
all of the following: (a) the procedures and calculations used to
determine and impose any portion of the sentence; (b) the term of
imprisonment imposed by the Court; (c) the fine imposed by the
court, provided it is within the statutory maximum;(d) the
amount and terms of any restitution order, provided it requires
payment of no more than $950,000; (e) the term of probation or
supervised release imposed by the Court, provided it is within
the statutory maximum; and (f) any of the following conditions of
probation or supervised release imposed by the Court: the
standard conditions set forth in General Orders 318, 01-05,
and/or 05-02 of this Court; the drug testing conditions mandated
13
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 13 of 19 Page ID #:126
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
14/19
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
15/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BREACH OF AGREEMENT
24. Defendant agrees that if defendant, at any time after
the signature of this agreement and execution of all required
certifications by defendant, defendants counsel, and anAssistant United States Attorney, knowingly violates or fails to
perform any of defendants obligations under this agreement (a
breach), the USAO may declare this agreement breached. All of
defendants obligations are material, a single breach of this
agreement is sufficient for the USAO to declare a breach, and
defendant shall not be deemed to have cured a breach without the
express agreement of the USAO in writing. If the USAO declares
this agreement breached, and the Court finds such a breach to
have occurred, then: (a) if defendant has previously entered
guilty pleas pursuant to this agreement, defendant will not be
able to withdraw the guilty pleas, and (b) the USAO will be
relieved of all its obligations under this agreement.
COURT AND PROBATION OFFICE NOT PARTIES
25. Defendant understands that the Court and the United
States Probation Office are not parties to this agreement and
need not accept any of the USAOs sentencing recommendations or
the parties agreements to facts or sentencing factors.
26. Defendant understands that both defendant and the USAO
are free to: (a) supplement the facts by supplying relevant
information to the United States Probation Office and the Court,
(b) correct any and all factual misstatements relating to the
Courts Sentencing Guidelines calculations and determination of
sentence, and (c) argue on appeal and collateral review that the
Courts Sentencing Guidelines calculations and the sentence it
15
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 15 of 19 Page ID #:128
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
16/19
1
2
3
45
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
chooses to impose are not error, although each party agrees to
maintain its view that the calculations in paragraph 15 are
consistent with the facts of this case. While this paragraph
permits both the USAO and defendant to submit full and completefactual information to the United States Probation Office and the
Court, even if that factual information may be viewed as
inconsistent with the facts agreed to in this agreement, this
paragraph does not affect defendants and the USAOs obligations
not to contest the facts agreed to in this agreement.
27. Defendant understands that even if the Court ignores
any sentencing recommendation, finds facts or reaches conclusions
different from those agreed to, and/or imposes any sentence up to
the maximum established by statute, defendant cannot, for that
reason, withdraw defendants guilty pleas, and defendant will
remain bound to fulfill all defendants obligations under this
agreement. Defendant understands that no one - not the
prosecutor, defendants attorney, or the Court - can make a
binding prediction or promise regarding the sentence defendant
will receive, except that it will be within the statutory
maximum.
NO ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS
28. Defendant understands that, except as set forth herein,
there are no promises, understandings, or agreements between the
USAO and defendant or defendants attorney, and that no
additional promise, understanding, or agreement may be entered
into unless in a writing signed by all parties or on the record
in court.
//
16
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 16 of 19 Page ID #:129
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
17/19
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 17 of 19 Page ID #:130
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
18/19
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 18 of 19 Page ID #:131
-
7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement
19/19
Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 19 of 19 Page ID #:132