8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

1/22

I N THE UNITED STATES ISTRICT COURTFOR THE DI STR I CT NEvi YORK

UNI TED STATES OF .I.!1ER I CA ,v .

MA RK CONGI ,De f e nd a n t ,

PLEA AGREEMENT

0 2 - CR - 7 3' - .II (1)

L E

The de f e n d a rir; , K CONGr , and t he Un i t e d S t at . e s A tt o rn e y f o rt h e Ne s t e r n Di t r i. c t. o f 11e\: / Yo r k (h e r e i na f t e r , " r.h e g ov e r nmen t " )h e r e by e n t e r in t o a p l e n agreeme n t wi t.h th e t e r ms a n d c ond i t ' o n s ass e t o u t be l ow .

I . THE PLEA . POSSIBLE SENTENCE

1 . The d e f end a n t a g r e e s p ,e ad gu i l t y Cou n t One of theSe c o nd Su p e r s ed i ng I nd i c t me n t (h e r e i n a f t e r , " I nd i c merit;11 ) , wh i chcoun . c h a r g es a v io a - i on I Ti tl e 18 , Uni t e d St a t e s Coce , Sec t i o n19 6 2 (d) (::

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

2/22

t h a t t h e pena l t i e s s e t fo r th in t h i s pa rag raph a re the maximumpena l t i e s t ha t can b e i m p o s e d by the C o u r t a t sen tenc ing .

2 . T he defendant unders tands t h a t , with r e spec t to bo thproper ty damage a n d bod i ly i n j u r i e s caused , d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y ,by th e d e f e n d a n t the C o u r t m u s t requ i re r e s t i t u t i o n in a n a m o u n t tob e determined , but in no event g rea t e r than $ 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 , w h i c h i s tob e pa id to the v i c t ims o r , w h e r e s u c h losses h a v e b e e n pa id byi n s u r a n c e ca r r i e r s , to the ca r r i e r s , as pa r t of th e sen tencepu rsuan t to Sentenc ing Guidel ines SE1 . l a n d Ti t l e 18, Uni tedSta tes Code, Sec t ion 3663A.

3 . The de fendan t unde r st and s t h a t , i f it i s d e t e r m i n e d t h a t. th e defendant has vio la t :ed a n y of the te rms o r condi t ions o fsuperv i sed r e l ease , the d e f e n d a n t ma y b e requ i red to serve inpr i son a l l o r pare o f th e t e r m o f su pe rv is ed r el ea se ( u p to 2year s , w i t h o u t c r ed i t fo r t i m e p re vio us ly serv ed o n superv i sedr e l ease . As a c o n s e q u e n c e , in the event th e defendant i s sen tencedto th e maximum t e r m of i nca rce ra t ion , a pr i son t e r m im p o s e d fo r av io l a t i o n o f s up er vi se d r e l e a se ma y r e su lt in th e defendant se rv inga se nte nc e o f i m p r i s o n m e n t longe r than th e s t a t u t o ry maximum s e tfo r th in pa rag raph 1 of t h i s a g r e e m e n t .

-2 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

3/22

I I . SENTENCING GUIDELINES

4. The d ef en da nt u n de rs ta nd s t h a t th e Cour t must cons i de rbu t i s not bound by th e Sentencing Guide l ines (sentenc ing ReformAct o f 1984) .

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

5 . The d e fe n da n t u n d er s ta n ds th e na tu re o f th e of fense s e tfo r th in paragraph 1 of t h i s a gr eemen t a nd under s t ands t h a t i f t h i scase proceeded to trial, th e gover nment woul d be r equ i r ed to provebeyond a r easonab le doubt th e f ol low in g e lemen ts o f th e cr ime:

a. t h a t th e d efen dan t and o th ers e nte re d i n to th e unlawfu lagreement charged in th e Ind ic tment ( t ha t i s , agree ing to v io l a t e18 U.S.C. 1962(c) by agreeing with o the r s to conduct andpa r t i c i p a t e , d i r ec t l y and in d ir ec tly , in th e conduct o f th e a f f a i r so f an en t e rp r i s e through a pa t t e rn of r ac k ete e rin g a c ti vi tY i andmore s p ec i f i c a l l y , t h a t th e defendan t and o the r s would commitmul t i p l e ac t s of ex to r t ion on beha l f o f th e Loca l 91 Crimina lEn te rp r i s e def ined in pa rag raph 1 of th e In dic tm e nt) ;

b. t h a t th e de fendan t knowingly and wi l l f u l l y became a membero f th e consp i r acy ; and

-3 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

4/22

c . t h a t th e defendant agreed t h a t a consp i r a t o r would commita t l e a s t tw o ac t s of r ac k et ee ri ng i n th e c on du ct o f the a f f a i r s ofthe en t e rp r i s e charged in the I nd ic tmen t .

FACTUAL ~ A S I S

6. The de fendan t and th e government ag ree to th e fo l lowing

f ac t s , which form th e bas i s fo r the en t r y of th e plea of gu i l t yi nc lud ing r e l evan t conduc t :

Commencing in approximate ly 1996 , th e exac t da tebe ing unknown, and cont inu ing t h e r e a f t e r up to andi nc lud ing May lS , 2002, in the Western Di s t r i c t ofNew York, th e defendant , MARK CONGI, t oge the r withOcminick Del lacc io , Salva to re Bert ino, Alber tCeles te , Andrew Shomers, Salva to re Spa to r i co , PaulBel l r eng , Andrew Tornascik, J r . , and o the r membersof a l abo r union known as Laborers I n t e rna t i ona lUnion o f North America, Local 91 (he re ina f t e r ,"Local 91") whose i d en t i t i e s a re known to th epa r t i e s , cons t i t u t ed an en te rp r i s e as t h a t term i sdef ined in T i t l e 18, United Sta t e s Code, Sec t ion1961 (4) ; namely , a group of i nd iv idua l s and a l aborunion a s so c i a t ed - i n - f a c t , which en te rp r i s e wasengaged in and th e a c t i v i t i e s of which a f fec tedi n t e r s t a t e commerce.The p r i n c i p a l objec t ive of th e en t e rp r i s e in . whichthe de fendan t and o the r s pa r t i c i p a t ed cons i s t ed ofi l l e g a l l y seek ing to ob ta in and ob ta in ing proper tyby ac t s and t h r e a t s invo lv ing ex to r t i on . Theprope r ty sought to be obta ined and obtainedcons i s t ed of jobs performed on cons t r uc t i onp ro je c t s in Niagara County, New York, and th epayment of wages and bene f i t s a s soc i a t ed with thosej obs . The de fendant and o the r members o f theen t e rp r i s e ob ta ined and at tempted to ob ta in such

-4 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

5/22

proper ty from union and non-union cons t ruc t ioncon t r ac t o r s , and from union and non-un ion employeesand l abo re r s . In the t ime per iod o f 1996 throughMay 2002, th e defendan t se rved a s Pres i den t andBusiness Agent o f Loca l 91.As pa r t of t h i s conspi racy, and as descr ibedfu r the r in Racketeer ing Acts One and Two, in o rabout May, 1996, the exac t date being unknown, th edefendan t l ea rned of ce r t a in work r e l a t e d d i spu test ha t Loca l 91 members were a t t h a t t ime h av in g w ithemployees o f the Vulcan Shaw Floo r company( he r e i na f t e r , "Vulcan ") and the Louis P. Cimine l l icompany ( he r e i na f t e r , ( "C imine l l i " ) . The dispu tesr e l a t ed to a spec t s o f v iny l tile s e t t i ng work be ingper formed by Vulcan employees a t a Targe t s t o r elo c a ted in Niagara Fa l l s , New Yoz k , as well asa t t empt s by Loca l 91 to induce Cimine l l i to h i r eunwanted and unnece ssa ry l abo r e r s . At th e t ime o fthe d i spu t e s , th e defendant and o t h e r Local 91members knew t h a t Vulcan emp lo yee s w ere members o fa ca rpen t e r s union, and not members o f Local 91.In fu r t he r ance o f th e conspi racy, th e defendan ti n s t ruc t ed Salvatore Ber t ino , Andrew Shomers, ando the r members o f Local 9 l whose i d en t i t i e s a reknown to th e pa r t i e s , to en t e r th e Targe tcons t r uc t i on s i t e dur ing th e evening hours , andt h e r e a f t e r des t roy ce r t a i n p ro p er ty o f vulcan so asto induce Vulcan, and its employees , to pa r t withaspec t s o f t h e i r jobs and th e payment of wages andb e ne fi ts a ss oc ia te d with those j obs l as well as toinduce Cimine l l i to h i r e add i t i ona l l abo re r s . Thecodefendant .s engaged in t h i s conduct dur ing th eevening hou rs o f May 13 1 1996, when Sa lva to reBer t ino , Andrew Shomers, and o the r Local 91members, broke in to th e Targe t s to r e cons t r uc t i ons i t e and t h e r e a f t e r committed mul t ip l e ac t s o fprope r ty des t ruc t i on upon the t oo l s and equipmento f th e employees o f Vulcan, as wel l as upon th et oo l s and equipment. of the Vulcan itself, suchdes t ruc t i on inc lud ing dumping a l a rge quan t i t y o fblack tile adhes ive over newly - i n s t a l l ed v iny lf loor ing and a nt.o a tool box, and removing andt h e r e a f t e r th rowing a f lo or b uf fin g machine used byVulcan i n to a f i e l d behind th e Target cons t ruc t ions i t e .

- 5 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

6/22

Also in fu rth eran ce o f the consp i r acy charged inCount One o f the Lnd i. c t rnerrt., and as descr ibedf u r t he r in Racke teer ing A cts F ive and s ix , sometimep r i o r to on o r about Apr i l 21, 1997, th e defendant ,Albe r t Celes te r and o the r s fo l lowed employees ofSans la , I nc . , as such employees l e f t t h e i r jo b s i t ea t the D rink ing H ater Treatment Plan t (DWTP) inNiagara Fa l l s , New York, fo r the purpose o fde t e rrru na nq where such employees l i v ed and fo ra t t emp t ing to i n s t i l l f ea r in th e minds of theSans la empLoye e s . At the t ime , employees ofSans la , I n c . , were performing an asbes tos reITovalp ro j e c t a t th e DWTP, were no t members o f any l abo runion, and the defendant , Alber t Ce le s t e , PaulBel l r eng , and o the r members of Local 91 wanted too b ~ a i n the work be ing per formed, and th e payment ofassoc ia ted wages and bene f i t s r ece ived by theSans la employees . The defendant add i t i ona l lyd i r e c t ed Anthony Cerrone, Andrew Shomers, R ob ertMalves tu to , J r . , and Randal l But l e r to throw twoexplos ive dev ices in to the r e s idence of theemployees of SarrIsa, Inc . , such re si de n ce l oc at edin th e Town o f Niagara , New York, wi th sa id conductof th e codefendants in fa ct o cc ur r in g during theevening hours of A pr i l 21, 1997. One of theemployees o f Sans la suf f e red permanent i n ju ry as ar e su l t of the Apr i l 21, 1997 a t t a ck .Also in fu r the rance of the consp i racy charged inCount One of t lw Ind ic tment , and as charged inRacketeer ing Acts Seven and Eigh t , a t var ious t imesbetween in o r about March 1998 and in o r aboutSeptember 1998 , the defendant , t oge the r withSalva tore Spato r i co , and o the r members of Local 91engaged in numerous ac t s of ac tua l and th r ea tenedvio lence t o pe rnoris and proper ty , a t the C la rionHote l r enova t ion p ro j e c t (he re ina f t e r " the Clar ionp ro j e c t " ) unci th e Niagara Fa l l s Hote l cons t ruc t ionprOlect in Niagara Fa l l s , New York. These acts ofac tua l and th r ea tened v io lence were under taken inorder to ob ta in from Hosp i t a l i t y Res to r a t i on &Bu ild ers , In c. ("HRB"), S er vic o Ho te ls and Reso r t s ,Inc. ( "Serv ico" ) , and t h e i r non-rm i on employees,jobs and the payment of wages and bene f i t sassoc ia ted with those jobs . Among o t h e r t h ings Ithe de f eridarit; provided members of Local 91 witheggs and s t a r s to be thrown a t th e C la r ion ho te land upon i tG proper ty .

-6 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

7/22

Also in f uz-t he r ance o f th e con sp i r a cy cha rged inCount One o f th e Ind ic tmen t , and a s cha rged inRacke tee r ing Acts Nine and Ten, dur ing th e morninghours o f Septem ber 16, 1998, Mark Congi d i r e c t e dmembers o f Loca l 91, i n c lud ing Andrew Shomers,Anthony C erro ne , S te ve n Mark le , Lar ry Qua r c in i , ando th e r s to immedia te ly go to the Wegman'soorie t ru c t Lon p r o j e c t on M i l it a r y Road in NiagaraFa l l s , New York . The de fendan t a l so went to thewegman'S p ro j e c t , and t h e r e j o i n ed s ev e r a l o t h e rLocal 91 members, includ ing Dominick Del lacc io ,Sa lva to r e Be:r:t.:.ino I Shomers, Cer rone , Markle /Quarc in i , and o t h e r s . The de f endan t t h e rea f t e ri n s t r u c t e d th e Loca l 91 members to con f r on t memberso f a b r i c k l a ye r s un ion who a t t h a t t ime werepe r fo rming t i l e ~ , e t t ing work fo r th e E. G. Sacke t tCompany, Inc . Tr;e ensuing a t t a ck o f th etilesetters coris i s t.ed o f th e members o f Loca l 91punching , k i ck i ng , s tomping and o the rw i s e s t r i k i ngth e Sacke t t employees . The reason t h a t th ede fendan t and ot .her Local 91 members pa r t i c i p a t e din t h i s a t t a c k was to o b ta in from th e Sacke t tcompany and its employees p rope r t y cons is t ing ofaspec t s o f th e j cb s be i.nq per formed by Sacke t t andits employees I and th e wages and bene f i t sa s s o c i a t e d with those jobs .Also in fur therance of th e co nsp ira cy cha rged inCount One, and as de s c r i b ed fu r the r in Racketeer ingActs E l even , 'I'weLve , Th i r t e en , and Four t een , th ede fendan t I t :ogether with S a lv a to re B e rt i no , AndrewShomers , and o t h e r members o f Loca l 91, agreed touse f e a r and jn tim id a t io n in an e f f o r t to o b ta inc e r t a i n j ob s and th e payment o f wages and benef i t sa s s oc i a t e d with those jobs , from un ion ca rp en t e r semployed by th e Mader Cons t r u c t i on Company(Racke tee r ing Acts Eleven and Twelve) J and fromun ion e Le c tr i c i ane employed by Ferguson Elec t r i cCompany (RLlcketeering Acts Th i r t een and Four teen)dur ing con s t r u c t i on o f th e Niaga ra Fa l l s HighSchool in Niaga ra PaI l s , New York, in the t imepe r i od o f 1999 t h r ough 2000 . The f e a r andi n t im ida t io I l Hued by th e de fendan t and o t h e rmembers o f Local 91 dur ing t h i s t ime pe r iodinc luded s t r i k i ng e nd t h r ea t en ing a member o f th ec a r p en t e r ' s un ion , and punc tu r ing th e tires o f av e h i c l e owned by a member o f th e e l e c t r i c i a n ' sun ion .

-7 -

- .. ..... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

8/22

The defendant fu r the r agrees t h a t he i n s t ruc t edAndrew Shomers to use fea r and i n t im ida t i on in ane f f o r t to obta in ce r t a i n jobs and th e payment ofwages and bene f i t s a ss o ci at ed w i th those jobs , fromunion l abore rs employed by Old Cast l e Precas t ,Inc . , in the t ime per iod of May 21, 2001 throughMay 22, 2001 (R acketeering A cts Fi f t een andSix teen) . dur ing a cons t ruc t ion p ro j e c t occur r ing athe Niagara Fa l l s Airbase . The defendant fu r the rin s t ruc t ed Salva tore Ber t ino to use f e a r andin tim id at io n in an e f f o r t to ob t a i n ce r t a i n jobsand the payment of wages and bene f i t s assoc ia tedwith those jobs , from union ca rpen te r s employed byScrufa r i Construct ion Conpany and E & B Equ i prrent;and Purn i t ur e , Inc . , in the t ime per iod of Ju ly ,2001 through A u g u s t , 2001 , dur ing a cons t ruc t ionpro j ec t occur r ing a t the Lewiston Por t e r MiddleSchool (Racketeer ing Acts Seventeen and Eighteen) .The defendant f u r t h e r agrees he a s s i s t ed Jo e lCicero in the extorr . ion of th e Pro serveco rp o ra t ion , du ring the cons t ruc t i on p ro jec toccur r ing a t the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge in thet ime pe rio d o f September , 2001 through Apr i l , 2C02.The above f ac t s are se t fo r th fo r the l imi tedpurpose of complying with Rule 11 ( f ) and are notin tended to se rve as a complete s ta tement of thedefendan t ' s cr imina l conduct .

BASE OFFENSE LEVEL

7 . The g ov ern men t a nd the defendant ag ree t h a t Guidel ines 2El . l ( a} ( l) app l i e s to th e o ffen se of convic t ion and providesfo r a base of fense l eve l of 19.

-8 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

9/22

$PECIFIC OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICSUSSG CHAPTER 2 ADJUSTMENTS

8. The government and t he d ef en dant agree t h a t th e fol lowingspec i f i c of fense cha rac te r i s t i c apply :

a . With re sp ec t to th e at tempted ex to r t ion o fCin ine l l i , a o ne -le ve l in cr ea se pur suan t to 2B3.2 (b ) (2) and 2B3.1(b) (7) (B) ( l o s sexceeding $ ~ O , O O O ) .

Vulcan andGuidel inesto vict im

b. With r e spec t to the a t tempted ex to r t i on o f B ansia and i t semployees, a two- level increase pursuan t to Guidel ines 2B3.2 (b) (1) fo r expre s s o r imp l ied t h r e a t o f dea th ; as i x - l eve l inc rease pursuan t to Guidel ines 2B3.2(b) (4 ) (e ) fo r permanent bodi ly i n ju ry sus ta ined bya vic t im; and a f ou r - l eve l i nc rease pur suan t toGuidel ines 2I33. 2 (b ) (3 ) (A) (iv) fo r use o f a dangerousweapon ( the 2 explos ive devices)

c . With r e sp e c t to the attempted ex to r t i on o f E.G. Sacket tand its employees I a o:1e-level i nc r ea s e pur suan t toGuidel ines & 283.2 (b ) (2 ) and 2B3.1 (b ) (7 ) (B) ( lo ss tovic t im exceed ing $10, 000) ; a two- leve l i nc rease pursuantto Guide l ines 2B3.2 (b ) (1) fo r express o r impl ied t h r e a to f bod i ly i n j u ry ; a two- leve l i nc rease pursuant toGuide l ine s 2B3.2(b) (4 ) (B) f o r bod i l y i n j u ry sus ta inedby f ou r vic t ims i and a two- leve l i nc rease pursuant toGuide l i nes 283.2 (b ) (5) (B) fo r r e s t r a i n t o f th e vic t ims .d. With r e spec t to the at tempted ex to r t i on of Mader andits employees , a two- leve l i nc r ea s e pur suan t toGuide l ines 2B3. 2 (b) (4 ) (A) fo r bod i ly i n j u ry sus ta inedby th e v ~ c t i . m .

9. As a r e su l t , the government and th e de fendan t agree t h a tth e of fense l eve l s fo r R ~ c k e t e e r i n g Acts One and Two (Vulcan) are19 and t h a t these t.wu of fense l eve l s should be combined fo r acombined o f f en se l eve l of 19; fo r Racke tee r ing Ac t s Five and Six(Sansla) are 30 and t.ha t; these two of fense l eve l s should be

-9 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

10/22

combined fo r a combined of fense l eve l of 30; fo r Racketeer ing ActsNine and Ten (Sacket t) a re 25 and t h a t these two of fense l eve lsshould be combined fo r t l combined of fense l eve l of 25; and fo rRacketeer ing Acts Eleven and Twelve (Mader) a re 20 and t h a t thesetwo offense. l eve l s should be combined fo r a combined of fense l eve lof 20. The government unci the defendant ag ree t h a t the offensel eve l s fo r the remaining ac t s of racket .eer ing are a l l 18.

USSG CHAPTER 3 ADJUSTMENTS

10. The government and the defendant agree t h a t the fol lowingadjus tment to the base of fense l eve l app l ies :

A one (1) l eve l upward adjustment pursuant to Guidel ines 3D1.1, 3D1.2, 3D l . 3 , and 3Dl.4, because the groupingru les of these sec t ions c rea te an add i t i ona l ha l f un i t ofprosecu t ion fo r a t o t a l of 1-1/2 uni t s o f p ro se cu tio n.This upward s d j u c t rnent; r e su l t s in an ad jus ted offensel eve l or 31.

In addi t ion , the pa r t i e s agree t h a t the defendant shouldr ece ive a four (4 ) l eve l upward adjus tment pursuant to Guidel ines 3B1.1(a) because the defendant was an organizer and leader o fc r im ina l a c t i v i ty cha rged in Count One, and t h a t such ac t iv i tyinvolved f ive o r more pa r t i c i pan t s .

The pa r t i e s fu r t he r agree th a t the d ef end an t s houl d r ece ive atwo (2) l eve l upward ad ju stmen t p ur su an t to Guideline!'! 3C1.1 fo r

- 10 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

11/22

obs t ruc t ing and impeding the admin i s t ra t ion of j u s t i ce during thecourse of the prosecu t ion of the ins tant of fense .

COMBINED ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL

11. Based on Paragraphs 7 through 10 o f t h i s agreement, it i sthe unders tanding of the government and the defendant t h a t thedefendan t ' s combined ad jus ted offense le v e l fo r Count One of theIndic tment i s 37 .

~ C C E P T A N C E OF RESPONSIBILITY

12. At sen ten cin g, the government ag rees not to oppose thedefense r eques t t h a t the Cour t apply the tw o (2) l eve l downwardadjus tment of Guide l ines 3E1 .1 (a ) (acceptance of r e spons ib i l i t y ) Iwhich would r e su l t in a t o t a l offense l eve l of 35.

CRIMJNAL HISTORY CATEGORY

13 . I t 1 S the unders tanding of the governm ent and thedefendant tha t the de fendan t ' s cr iminal h i s t o ry category i s I . Thedefendant unders tands t h ~ t i f the defendant i s sen tenced for , o rc on vic te d o f l any o the r c ~ a r g e s p r i o r to sen tenc ing in t h i s ac t ionthe defendant I s c r imina l h i s to ry ca tegory may i nc rease . The

-11-

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

12/22

defendant unders tands t h a t the defendant has no r i g h t t o withdrawt h e p l e a of gui 1 t y based on the C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f thed e f e n d a n t ' s c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y category.

GUIDELINES' APPLICATION, CALCULATIONS AND IMPACT

14. I t i s t h e urrde r-s t.aridi.nq of t h e government and thedefendant t h a t I with a t o t a l offense l e v e l o f 35 and c r i m i n a lh i s t o r y c at eg o r y o f I , t h e d e fe n d a n t 's sentencing range would be aterm of imprisonment of 168 t o 210 months, a f i n e o f $20,000 t o$200,000, and a p e r i o d of supervised r e l e a s e of 2 t o 3 y e a r s . Thep a r t i e s f u r t h e r agree to request t h a t t h e Court sentence thedefendant t o a term of imprisonment of 180 months ( f i f t e e n years) .Notwithstanding t h i s , thp. defendant unders tands t h a t a t sentencingt h e defendant i s s u b j e c t t o the maximum p e n a l t i e s s e t f o r t h i nparagraph 1 of t h i s agreement .

15. The government and t h e defendant agree t o t h e SentencingGuidel ines c a l c u l a ti o n s s e t f o r t h i n t h i s agreement and n e i t h e rp a r t y w i l l advocate o r recommend t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of any o t h e rGuideline or sentence , except as s p e c i f ic a l l y s e t f o r t h i n t h i sagreement. A breach of t h i s paragraph by one p a r t y w il l r e l i e v ethe o t h e r p a r t y of any agreements made i n t h i s p l e a agreement withr e s p e c t t o sentencing motions and recommendations.

- 1 2 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

13/22

I I I . STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

16. In the oven t the defendant ' s p lea o f gu i l t y i s withdrawn,o r c on vic tio n v ac ate d, e i t h e r pre- o r pos t - sen tence , by way o fappea l , motion, pos t - conv ic t i on proceeding , co l l a t e r a l a t t ack o ro the rwise 1 th e de fen da nt a gre es no t to a s s e r t th e s t a tu t e ofl im i t a t i ons as a defense to any cr imina l of f ense involv ing o rr e l a t ed to ex to r t i on and RICO conspiracy , which i s no t t ime bar redas of the da te o f t h i s agreement , and which could r easonab ly bebased on th e f ac t s known to the government on the da te of th e en tryof th e de f endan t ' s p l ea . This waiver s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e fo r aper iod of s ix months fol lowing the da te upon which th e withdrawalo f the gu i l t y p l ea o r v ac at in g o f the conv ic t i on becomes f i na l .

IV. GOVERNMENT RIGHTS AND RESERVATIONS

17. The de fendan t unde r s tands t h a t th e government hasre se rv ed th e r i g h t to :

a . p rovide to th e Proba t ion Off ice and th e Cour t a l lth e i n fo rmat ion and evidence in its possess ion t h a tth e government deems :::-elevant concern ing th ede f endan t ' s background, cha rac t e r and involvementin th e of fense charged , the c ircumstancessu r round ing the charge and th e d ef en d an t's cr imina lh i s to ry ;

b . a l locu te and respond a t sen tenc ings ta tements made by th e defendant o r

-13-

toon anythe

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

14/22

defendan t ' s beha l f t h a t a re i n cons i s t en t with thein fo rmat ion and eVldence ava i l ab l e to thegovernment;

c . a l locu te fo r a 15 year sen tence ; andd. modify its pos i t i on with re spec t to any sen tenc ingrecommendat ion o r sen tenc ing f ac to r unde r the

Guidel ines inc lud ing cr imina l h i s t o ry ca tegory , inthe even t t h a t subsequent to t h i s agreement thegovernment r ec e iv e s p re v io u sl y unknown in format ionregarding the recommendation o r fa c to r.

18. At sen tenc ing , th e government wi l l move to dismiss theo r i g i n a l Ind ic tment , the F i r s t Superseding Ind ic tmen t , and the opencounts o f the Second Super sed ing Indi ctment in t h i s ac t ion pendingaga in s t th e defendant i n so fa r as they r e l a t e to th e defendant .

19 . The d efenda nt a gre es t h a t any f i nanc i a l records andinformat- ion provided by th e defendant to th e P ro ba tio n O ff ic e,be fo re o r a f t e r sen tenc ing , may be di sc losed to th e United Sta tesAt to rn e y/ s O f fi ce fo r use in the co l l ec t ion of any unpaid f inanc ia lob l iga t ion .

20 , The defendant fu l ly unders tands t h a t , to th e ex ten t thatth e government has o r may have any i t ems of phys ica l evidence int h i s case t h a t cou ld be sub jec ted to DNA t e s t ing pursuan t to 18U.S.C. 3600, the defendant has the r i g h t to f i l e a motion with theCour t to have such i t ems t e s t ed fo r DNA in an a t tempt to prove t h a tth e defendant i s ac tua l l y in no ce nt o f the cr ime to which th e gui l ty

-14-

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

15/22

p l e a has been e n t e r e d i n t h i s case . The defendant has discussedt h i s r i g h t with defense counsel , and t h e defendant knowingly andv o l u n t a r i l y waives t h e r i g h t t o make such a motion and t o have suchDNA t e s t i n g performed on any such i tems t h e government may have o rmay o b t a i n i n t h e f u t u r e . The defendant f u l l y unders tands t h a tbecause t h e defendant i s waiving t h e s e r i g h t s , any p h y s i c a levidence t h a t may e x i s t o r be found t o e x i s t i n t h i s case w i l ll i k e l y be d e s t r o y e d o r w i l l otherwise be u na v ai l a b l e f o r DNAt e s t i n g i n t h e f u t u r e .

v. APPEAL RIGHTS

21. The d e fen dant u nd e rs ta nd s t h a t T i t l e 18, United S t a t e sCode, S e c t i o n 3742 a f f o r d s a defendant a l i m i t e d r i g h t t o appealt h e sentence imposed. The defendant , however, knowing ly waives ther i g h t t o appeal , modify pursuant t o T i t l e 18, u n i t e d S t a t e s Code,S e c t i o n 3582 (c) (2) and c o l l a t e r a ll y a tt a c k any component o f asentence imposed by t h e Court which f a l l s w i t h i n o r i s l e s s thant h e s e n t e n c i n g range f o r imprisonment) a f i n e and s u p e r v i s e dr e l e a s e s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n I I , ~ 1 above, n o t w i t h st a n d in g t h emanner i n which t h e Court d e t e r m i n e s t h e s en te n c e. The defendantf u r t h e r agrees no t t o appeal a r e s t i t u t i o n o r d e r which does notexceed the amount s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n I o f t h i s agreement .

- 1 5 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

16/22

2 2 . The d e f e n d a n t u n d e r s t a ~ d s t h a t b y a g r e e i n g t o n o tc o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k t h e s e n t e n c e , t h e d e f e n d a n t i s w a i v i n g t h er i g h t t o c h a ll e ng e t h e s e n t e n c e in t h e e v e n t t h a t i n t h e f u t u r e t h ed e f e n d a n t b eco m es a w a r e o f p r e v i o u s l y unknown f a c t s o r a c h a n g e i nt h e la w w h i c h t h e d e f e n d a n t b e l i e v e s woul d j u s t i f y a d e c r e a s e i nt h e d e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e .

2 3 . The g o v e r n m e n t w a i v e s i t s r i g h t t o a p p e a l a n y co m p o n en to f a s e n t e n c e i m p o s e d by t h e C o u r t w h i c h f a l l s w i t h i n o r i s g r e a t e rt h a n t h e s e n t e n c i n g r a n g e f o r i m p r i s o n m e n t , a f i n e a n d s u p e r v i s e dr e l e a s e s e t f o r t h i n S e c t i o n I I , ~ 1 a b o v e , n o tw i th s t an d in g t h em a n n e r i n w h i c h t h e C o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h e s e n t e n c e . H ow e ve r , i n t h ee v e n t o f a n a p p e a l f r o m t h e d e f e n d a n t IS s e n t e n c e b y t h e d e f e n d a n t ,t h e g o v e r n m e n t r e s e r v e s i t s r i g h t t o a r g u e t h e c o r r e c t n e s s o f t h ed e f e n d a n t ' s s e n t e n c e .

VI. COOPERATION

w i l l c o o p e r a t e w i t h t h e4 .p r o v i d i n g

The d e f e n d a n t.cornpLe t.e a n d t r u t h f u l i n f o r m a t i o n

g o v e r n m e n tr e g a r d i n g

byt h e

d e f e n d a n t ' s ~ n o w l e d g e o f a n y a n d a l l c r i m i n a l a c t i v i t y , w h e t h e ru n d e r t . a k e n b y t h e d e f e n d a n t o r o t h e r s , i n a n y w a y i n v o l v i n g o rr e l a t e d t o h i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n I n a n d k n o w le d g e o f t h e f a c t su n d e r l y i n g t h e I n d i c t m e n t i n t h i s c a s e . T he d e f e n d a n t ' s

- 1 6 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

17/22

coopera t ion sha l l a l so inc lu de subm itting to in te rviews bygovernment a t to rneys and agents , as wel l as t e s t i fy ing t ru th fu l lyand completely before grand j u r i e s and a t such p r e - t r i a l and t r i a lproceedings as th e government sha l l deem necessary .

25. In exchange fo r the defendan t ' s plea of gui l ty andcoopera t ion as se t fo r th in t h i s agreement, the defendant wi l l notbe prosecuted by the Off ice of the United Sta tes Attorney fo r theWestern Dis t r i c t of New York fo r any other f ede ra l cr iminalof fenses committed in the Western Dis t r i c t of New York in any wayinvolving or re l a t ed to Indictment 0 2 ~ C R - 0 7 3 - A committed up to theda te of the i l ing of such Indictm ent, and about which thedefendant provides complete and t ru th fu l informat ion. Such apromise of non-prosecut ion does not forec lose any p ro se cu tio n f oran ac t involving murder, a t tempted murder, o r ac t of physica lv io len ce ag ain st the person of another , o r conspi racy to commit anac t of violence o the r than those about which the defendant hasinformed the government p r i o r to h is s igning t h i s plea agreement.

Fur the r I no t es tim ony , s ta tem ent s or tangible obj ec t s providedby the defendant in compliance with t h i s agreement (or anyinformat ion d i rec t ly o r i nd i rec t ly der ived theref rom) wil l be usedagains t the defendant in any cr iminal case , except a prosecut ionfo r p er ju ry o r making fa l se s ta tements .

- 17 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

18/22

26. The defendan t unders tands t ha t , notwiths tanding thedefendant (s ob l iga t i on to coopera te wi th the government as s e tfo r th in t h i s agreement , th e government wi 11 not f i l e a motionpursuan t to Guide l ines 5Kl . l o r Ti t l e 18, Dni te d Sta t e s Code,Sect ion 3553 (e ) fo r a downward depar tu re from th e de fendan t ' 5sentencing range o r pursuan t to Rule 35(b) fo r a r educt ion of th edefendan t ' s sen tence .

27. This agreement does not prec lude th e p ro secu tio n of thedefendan t fo r pe r ju ry o r making fa l se s ta tements in th e event th edefendan t t e s t i f i e s f a l s e ly o r prov ides f a l se in fo rma t ion to thegovernment.

28. Upon th e req ue s t o f the defendan t, a t th e t ime o fsen tenc ing , the government wi l l make th e n atu re and ex t en t o f th edefendant ' ( ; compliance wi th t h i s agreement known to the Court , andth e government. agrees t h a t , assuming the def endan t ' s coopera t ionhas been t r u t h f u l and comple te , th e defendan t may use h iscoopera t ion in any arg um en ts he may p resen t to th e Court in ane f f o r t to persuade th e Cour t to impose a sentence o f 180 months.

29. The def endan t ' s a t to rney i s express ly permi t t ed to bep re s en t a t any t ime th e defendant i s ques t ioned o r in terviewed by

-18 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

19/22

government agen ts r egard ing th e mat t e r s s e t fo r th in t h i sagreement .

VII. FORFEITURE PROVISIONS

30. Pursuant to h is conv ic t ion o f Count One o f th eIndic tment , th e d ef en da nt , MARK CONGI, ag rees t h a t h is conv ic t iono f Count One es t ab l i shes , by a preponderance o f th e evidence , a

bas i s fo r th e d ef en da nt to f o r f e i t to th e United S t a t e s a l l o f h isr i gh t , title and i n t e r e s t in hold ing any o f f i c e , s tewardsh ip , o ro t h e r pos i t i on in which he r ep r e s en t s o the r members o f the Union,and he agrees to f o r f e i t same pur auant; to T i t l e 18 U.S.C. 1963 (a) (1) and (2) .

31. The de fendan t f u r t h e r ag rees and unde r s tands t h a t a f t e rth e p lea i s en t e r ed , th e Cour t wi l l en t e r a Pre l iminary Order o fFor f e i t u r e fo r f e i t i ng th e above -desc r ibed prope r ty r i gh t s . Uponen t r y o f a F ina l Order o f For f e i t u r e , th e prope r ty r i gh t s o f thede fendan t wi l l be fo rever f o r f e i t ed .

32. The de fendan t ag rees t h a t th e above -desc r ibed proper tyr i gh t s a re p ro p er l y f o r f e i t ab l e due to th e defendant s r acke tee r ingac t i v i t y as s e t f o r t h in Count One o f th e I nd ic tmen t . Thede fendan t ag rees to fu lly a ss is t the government i n the f o r f e i t u r e

-19-

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

20/22

of the above-descr ibed proper ty r igh t s and to take whatever s t epsare necessary to e f f ec tua t e t h i s f or fe itu re a t the t ime th e plea i se nte red o r a t any t ime t he rea f t e r as. d i rec t ed by the government.

33. The defendant knowinglYl i n t e l l i g en t l y , and vo lun ta r i l ywaives h is r ig h t to a ju ry t r i a l on the fo r f e i t u r e of the above-desc r ibed proper ty r igh t s . Defendant knowingly, i n t e l l i g en t l y andvolun tar i ly waives a l l cons t i t u t i ona l , l ega l and equ i tab le defensesto the fo r f e i t u r e of th ese p ro per ty r i gh t s in any proceeding,inc lud ing any j eopa rdy de fense o r claim of double jeopardy , whethercons t i t u t i ona l or s t a t u to ry , as to t h i s c r imina l proceeding or anyr e l a t ed c i v i l proceeding r e fe r red to w ith in t h i s agreement.Defendant fu r t he r agrees to waive any claim o r defense under theEighth Amendment to the United s t a t e s Cons t i tu t ion , inc luding anycla im of excess ive f ine re ga rd in g th e fo r fe i tu re of asse t s by theUnited Sta t e s , th e Sta t e of New York, or its subdiv i s ions .

34. The defendant agrees and unders tands t h a t fo r f e i t u re ofthe aforement ioned proper ty r i gh t s as author ized here in pursuant toTi t l e 18 U.S .C. 1963 sh a l l not oe deemed an a l t e r a t i on of thedefendan t ' s sen tence . Fu rthe r the defendant agrees and understandst h a t the f .orfe i ture sh a l l not be t r ea t ed as s a t i s f a c t i on of anyf ine , r e s t i t u t i on , cos t of imprisonment , o r any o the r pena l ty t h i scour t may impose upon the defendant in add i t i on to fo r f e i t u re .

- 20 -

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

21/22

35. The de fendan t f r ee l y , vo lun t a r i l y , knowingly andi n t e l l i g en t l y waiv es any r i g h t to appea l o r co l l a t e r a l l y a t t ack anymat t e r in c onn ec ti on w it h t h i s prosecu t ion and s en te nc e, in clu din gthe fo r f e i tu r e o f a s s e t s as prov ided in t h i s agreement .

VI I I . TOTAL AGREEMENT AND AFFIRMATIONS

36. This plea agreement rep resen ts th e t o t a l agreementbetween th e defendant , MARK CONGl t and th e government . There a reno promises made by anyone o the r th an those con ta ined in t h i sagreement . This agreement super sedes any o t h e r p r i o r agreements ,w ri t te n o r o r a l , en t e r ed in to between th e governm ent and th edefendan t .

TERRANCE P. FLYNNUni ted S t a t e s AttorneyWestern Di s t r i c t o f New York

BY:HOCHUL, JRu. S. Attorney

Dated: August ~ 2006

BRETT A. HARVEYAss i s t an t U. S.Dated: August ~ 2006

-21-

8/14/2019 GJ-15 - US v. Mark Congi, 0806

22/22

I have read th i s agreement , which cons i s t s of 22 pages . Ihave had a f u l l oppor tun i ty to discuss t h i s agreement with mya t to rn ey , Jo el L. Danie l s , Esq. I agree t h a t it r ep r e s en t s thet o t a l agreement reached be tw een myself and th e government . Nopromises or r ep re sen t a t i ons have been made to me o the r than what i scon ta ined in t h i s agreement . I unders tand a l l of th e consequencesof my plea of gu i l t y . I ful ly agree w ith the co nten ts of t h i s

Dated;

agreement . I am s ign ing t h i s agreement vo lun t a r i l y and of my ownf ree wi l l , and in s ign ing it, I vo lun ta r i l y and f r e e l y admit thosef ac t s s e t fo r th in paragraph 6 of t h i s agreement.i!i!A?r-'efendant

ugust & 2006JOE L. IELS, ESQ.Attorney fo r th e Defendant

Dated, August 2006

-22-