Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17

Transcription

1 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION IN RE: PROVIDENCE FINANCIAL INVESTMENTS INC. and PROVIDENCE FIXED INCOME FUND, LLC Case No AJC Case No AJC Chapter 7 (Jointly Administered) Debtors. NOTICE OF FILING ANTONIO CARLOS DE GODOY BUZANELI'S PLEA AGREEMENT TO BE USED IN SUPPORT OF TRUSTEE'S MOTION FOR SUBSTANTIVE CONSOLIDATION [ECF NO. 153] AND TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO EXTEND THE 11 U.S.C. 0108, 546, AND 549 DEADLINES fecf NO. 151] Maria Yip, the Chapter 7 Trustee (the "Trustee"), for the bankruptcy estate of Providence Financial Investments, Inc. ("Providence Financial") and Providence Fixed Income Fund, LLC ("Providence Fixed") (collectively, the "Providence Debtors"), through undersigned counsel hereby files the following document in support of the Trustee's Motion for Substantive Consolidation [ECF No. 153] and the Trustee's Motion to Extend the 11 U.S.C. 108, 546, and 549 Deadlines [ECF No. 151]: (1) Antonio de Godoy Buzaneli's Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations filed in United States District Court District of Minnesota Case No. 17-cr MJD-HB (ECF NO. 16). Dated: April 30, 2018 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Luis R. Casas Eyal Berger, Esq. Florida Bar Number: eyal.berger@akerinan.com Luis R. Casas, Esq. Florida Bar Number: luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com AKERMAN LLP 350 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1600 Fort Lauderdale, FL Phone: / Fax: ;1 AKERMAN LLP, LAS OLAS CENTRE II, SUITE 1600, 350 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL

2 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 2 of 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 30, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing document is being served this day by transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF to those parties registered to receive electronic notices of filing in this case as listed in the Service List below. SERVICE LIST By: /s/ Luis R. Casas Luis R. Casas, Esq AX and AJC Notice will be electronically mailed to: Eyal Berger, Esq. on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip eyal.berger@akerman.com, jeanette.martinez@akerman.com Luis R Casas on behalf of Plaintiff Maria Yip luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com, janet.salinas@akerman.com Luis R Casas on behalf of Plaintiff Maria M. Yip luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com, janet.salinas@akerman.com Luis R Casas on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip luis.casasmeyer@akerman.com, janet.salinas@akerman.com Richard J Cole on behalf of Creditor Violetta Lvov rcole3@gmail.com, rc3@co1ecolelaw.com Catherine E Douglas on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip catherine.kretzschmar@akerman.com, jeanette.martinez@akerman.com James D Gassenheimer on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip jgassenheimer@bergersingerman.com, efile@bergersingerman.corn, efile@ecfinforuptcy.com Timothy S Kingcade, Esq on behalf of Creditor Scott LaChute scanner miamibankruptcy.com, kingcadeserve@bellsouth.net, r46540@notify.bestcase.com Timothy S Kingcade, Esq on behalf of Defendant Deborah Hays scanner@miamibankruptcy.com, kingcadeserve@bellsouth.net, r46540@notify.bestcase.com Joan M Levit, Esq on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip joan.levit@akerman,com, charlene.cerda@akerman.corn J 2

3 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 3 of 17 Isaac M Marcushamer, Esq. on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip imarcushamer@bergersingerman.com, fsellers@bergersingerman.corn, efile@bergersingerman.com, efile@ecf.inforuptcy.com David B Marks on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip brett.marks@akerman.com, charlene.cerda@akerman.com James B Miller, Esq on behalf of Debtor Providence Financial Investments, Inc. bkcmiami@gmail.com James B Miller, Esq on behalf of Debtor Providence Fixed Income Fund, LLc. bkcmiami@gmail.com Office of the US Trustee USTPRegion21.MM.ECF@usdoj.gov Jordan L Rappaport, Esq on behalf of Defendant Abio Financial Group, Inc. office@rorlawfirm.com, @filings.docketbird.corn Jordan L Rappaport, Esq on behalf of Defendant Amanda Francis office@rorlawfirm.com, @filings.docketbird.com Jordan L Rappaport, Esq on behalf of Defendant John Abio office@rorlawfirm.corn, @filings.docketbird.com Susan R Sherrill-Beard, Esq on behalf of Creditor U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sherrill-beards@sec.gov, atlreorg@sec.gov Andrea M Stewart on behalf of Creditor Philip Bell amstewartlaw@gmail.corn Bryan T West on behalf of Plaintiff Maria Yip bryan.west akerman.com, eileen.guzman@akerman.com, nancy.perez@akerman.com Bryan T West on behalf of Plaintiff Maria M. Yip bryan.west@akerman.com, eileen.guzman@akerman.com, nancy.perez@akerman.com Bryan T West on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip bryan.west@akerman.com, eileen.guzman akerman.com, nancy.perez@akerman.corn Maria Yip trustee@yipcpa.com, myip@ecf.epiqsystems.com Maria Yip on behalf of Trustee Maria Yip trustee@yipcpa.com, myip@ecf.epiqsystems.com ;1 3

4 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 4 of 17 nip CASE 0:17-cr M3D-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Criminal No (1) (MJD/IIB) Plaintiff, V. PLEA AGREEMENT AND SENTENCING STIPULATIONS ANTONIO CARLOS DE GODOY BUZANELL Defendant. The United States of America and Antonio Carlos de Godoy Buzaneli (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") agree to resolve this case on the terms and conditions that follow. This plea agreement binds only the defendant and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. This agreement does not bind any other United States Attorney's Office or any other federal or state agency. 1. Charges. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, charging him with conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C The defendant is pleading guilty to this charge because he is guilty of this charge. The United States agrees to move to dismiss Counts 2 through 13 as to this defendant at the time of sentencing. 2. Factual Basis. From at least in or about 2010 through at least in or about July 2016, in the State and District of Minnesota and elsewhere, the defendant did knowingly conspire with Jose Manuel Ordofiez, Julio Enrique Rivera, and others to devise and participate in a scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property by

5 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 5 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 2 of 14 means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, and material omissions, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, and attempting to do so, caused the sending, delivering, and receipt of various matters and things by United States Postal Service and private and commercial interstate carrier, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section The defendant, Jose Ordoriez, and Julio Rivera were the principals of Providence Holdings International, Inc., a Delaware holding company based in Key Biscayne, Florida. The defendant and Ordoriez became principals of Providence Financial Investments, Inc. and Providence Fixed Income Fund, LLC (collectively, along with Providence Holdings International, Inc., "Providence") in order to raise money from investors. At all times during the scheme, the defendant acted as Chief Executive Officer and a managing director of Providence. In this role, the defendant managed and supervised all Providence employees, including Providence's accounting and investor relations staff. From in or about 2010 until in or about June 2016, Providence raised more than $64 million from investors in the United States in the form of promissory notes bearing annual interest rates between 12% and 24%. Providence solicited investors through a network of brokers located throughout the United States, including in Minnesota. The defendant, Ordoriez, and Rivera told investors that Providence would use all of the investors' money for factoring accounts receivable in Brazil. In reality, instead of using all of the investors' money to factor accounts receivable in Brazil, and as the defendant, Ordotiez, and Rivera knew, Providence personnel diverted a significant amount of the investors' funds by paying purported profits to investors and commissions to brokers with money raised from new 2

6 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 6 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 3 of 14 investors. In addition, the defendant and Ordotiez diverted, and caused to be diverted, investor funds to other companies each of which was controlled by the defendant, Ordofiez, or both including an entertainment company, a travel company, an import/export company, a credit rehabilitation company, a realty company, and a catering company and food truck operated by the defendant's wife. In or about April 2011, Julio Rivera provided the defendant and Ordofiez with draft copies of an Executive Memorandum for approval prior to their use in soliciting investors for Providence. The Executive Memorandum stated that Providence would use the investors' funds "for the sole purpose" of making a loan to a Brazilian subsidiary of Providence "which will use the proceeds of the loan to acquire receivables or financial instruments such as post dated checks and/or Duplicatas in the Brazilian Factoring Market." The Executive Memorandum also contained a section entitled "Understanding How a Low Risk 12% ROT [or, Return on Investment] is Possible," which represented that because of the functioning of the Brazilian banking system, investors could receive a 12% annual rate of return in exchange for a low-risk investment in Providence. The defendant, Ordofiez, and Rivera were all aware that the Executive Memorandum contained false representations and material omissions regarding Providence's use of investor funds. Nevertheless, the defendant directed that Providence's brokers use the Executive Memorandum in pitching the Providence investment to potential investors. In addition, the defendant, Ordofiez, Rivera, and others acting at their direction made verbal misrepresentations to investors and potential investors regarding Providence's 3

7 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 7 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr M3D-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 4 of 14 use of investors' funds, including falsely representing that the investors' funds would be invested in factoring in Brazil. Before 2012, Providence's promissory notes to investors specifically stated that the investors' funds would be used for the sole purpose of factoring in Brazil, consistent with the language in the Executive Memorandum that Providence provided to investors describing the investment. This statement was false. In 2012, Providence quietly modified the language in the promissory notes provided to new and renewing investors to remove the "sole purpose" language. However, the Executive Memorandum was not changed, nor did the defendant instruct Providence's brokers to tell the investors their funds were being used to make interest and redemption payments to existing investors. Providence employed a nationwide network of brokers to solicit investors. The brokers received a substantial annual commission on the investor funds they raised for Providence. Some of the brokers recruited additional brokers and collected commissions on the investments solicited by those brokers as well. The brokers continued to receive their commissions for as long as the investors kept their money in Providence. By 2015, one of the brokers was receiving more than $100,000 per month in commissions on investor funds he had previously solicited for Providence. For the purpose of executing the fraud scheme, the defendant, Ordoriez, and Rivera caused Providence employees to use the United States Postal Service and private and commercial interstate carriers to send and receive materials to and from brokers and investors, including investors in Minnesota. For example, during the course of the scheme, Providence employees used the United Parcel Service to send promissory notes executed 4

8 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 8 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 5 of 14 by Providence personnel, including the defendant, to investors in Minnesota, and to receive back from Minnesota investors fully executed promissory notes. As the defendant well knew, Providence did not use all of the investors' money to factor accounts receivable in Brazil. Between August 2010 and June 2016, Providence personnel transferred less than $14 million of the $64 million invested in Providence by United States investors to Brazil. Instead, at the defendant's direction, and as the defendant and Ordoriez well knew, Providence employees used the investors' funds for other purposes, including: to make Ponzi-style interest payments and principal redemptions to existing investors; to pay commissions to Providence's nationwide network of brokers; to pay travel expenses for the defendant, Ordoriez, and other Providence personnel; and to transfer money to dozens of corporate entities each of which was controlled by the defendant, Ordoriez, or both including an entertainment company, a travel company, an import/export company, a credit rehabilitation company, a realty company, and a catering company and food truck operated by the defendant's wife. The defendant controlled bank accounts for Providence and for each of these other companies. On a daily basis, the defendant requested and received from Providence's accounting staff a listing of the account balances and pending transactions for each entity. The defendant used this information to make daily transfers of funds Providence received from investors to accounts for these other companies that had low or negative balances. By the end of 2010, the defendant, Ordoriez, and Rivera were each aware that Providence had substantial cash flow problems caused by Providence's failure to use all of 5

9 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 9 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 6 of 14 the investor funds to factor receivables in Brazil as they had represented to investors. As the defendant well knew, by 2014, Providence required more than $1 million per month to make monthly interest payments to existing investors, to make monthly commission payments to brokers, and to pay its bills. Nevertheless, the defendant directed Providence's brokers to continue to solicit money from investors for use in making these interest and commission payments. In doing so, the defendant, Ordotiez, Rivera, and the brokers told investors that their money would be used to factor receivables in Brazil, and did not disclose that most of their money would be used to make interest payments to existing investors and to pay commissions to Providence brokers. As the Providence promissory notes came due, Providence personnel and the broker who solicited the investments made efforts to induce the investors to roll over the investments into a new promissory note. However, some investors chose to redeem their investments at the conclusion of the telln of the promissory note and to withdraw their principal. Because the defendant and his co-conspirators had not invested the bulk of their investors' money in factoring, Providence needed to raise new investor money in order to pay old investors who sought to redeem their investments. When investor redemptions were delayed by the need to raise new investor funds, and with the knowledge of Ordofiez and Rivera, the defendant lulled the investors into believing that their funds were safe, prevented the discovery of the fraud scheme, and forestalled legal action by the investors by directing Providence personnel to make materially false statements to the investors about the status of their funds. For example, on several occasions beginning in 2011 and continuing into 2016, the defendant and Providence personnel acting at his direction falsely 6

10 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 10 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 7 of 14 informed investors that delayed redemptions were caused by the need to transfer money from Brazil. In or about December 2011, the defendant, Ordofiez, and others incorporated Providence Global Limited ("Providence Global") in the Bailiwick of Guernsey, an island territory located in the English Channel that is administered as a Dependency of the British Crown. After forming Providence Global, the defendant and Ordotlez established several Guernsey-based investment funds (collectively, the "Guernsey Funds"). The defendant and Ordofiez fraudulently solicited, and caused others to fraudulently solicit, more than 37 million (equivalent to approximately $55 million) from European investors by falsely representing that money invested in the Guernsey Funds would be used to factor accounts receivable in Brazil. Investors were told that the money invested in the Guernsey Funds would be lent to a Providence subsidiary in Brazil, which would use the money to purchase receivables in the Brazilian factoring market. The Guernsey Funds promised to provide investors with returns between 9.5% and 14.25%, with the investors' interest and principal payments being paid from the returns on these Brazilian factoring investments. The defendant and Ordotiez did not use the money invested in the Guernsey Funds as promised. The majority of the investors' money was not lent to Providence's Brazilian subsidiary or otherwise invested in Brazilian factoring. Instead, much of the investors' money was transferred to an array of Providence-controlled entities around the world. Investor funds were also sent to bank accounts controlled by the defendant and Ordofiez in the United States, where they were used to pay commissions to U.S. brokers who solicited investments in U.S.-based Providence Financial Investments, Inc. and Providence Fixed 7

11 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 11 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 8 of 14 Income Fund LLC, and to repay American investors in Providence's U.S.-based entities. Investors in the Guernsey Funds were not told their money was being used in this manner. The defendant and Ordofiez also opened, or caused to be opened, Providence offices and affiliates around the world, including in London, Hong Kong, Taipei, Shanghai, Singapore, Vancouver, and Panama. In or about 2012, for example, the defendant, Ordonez, and others opened a Providence affiliate in Hong Kong called Providence Preferred Financial Limited ("Providence Asia"). Like the other Providence entities, Providence Asia purported to be a company that invested in the Brazilian factoring market. Providence Asia employed brokers who sold promissory notes to investors throughout Asia. These brokers, acting at the direction of the defendant, Ordonez, and others, solicited and received the equivalent of approximately $30 million from investors in Providence Asia. These investors were told that their money would be lent to a Providence subsidiary in Brazil, which would use the money to purchase receivables in the Brazilian factoring market. In reality, Providence Asia did not use these investors' money to purchase receivables in the Brazilian factoring market. Instead, much of the investors' money was transferred to other Providence-controlled entities around the world as well as to bank accounts controlled by the defendant and Ordonez, where the money was used for payments unrelated to Brazilian factoring, including to pay commissions to U.S. brokers and to make interest payments to American investors in Providence's U.S.-based entities. As a result of the defendants' fraud scheme, Providence investors worldwide lost a total of more than $100 million. 8

12 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 12 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 9 of Waiver of Pretrial Motions. The defendant understands and agrees that he has certain rights to file pre-trial motions in this case. As part of this plea agreement, and based upon the concessions of the United States within this plea agreement, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily gives up the right to file pre-trial motions in this case. 4. Statutory Penalties. The parties agree that Count 1 of the Indictment carries statutory penalties of: a. a maximum of 20 years' imprisonment; b. a maximum supervised release term of 3 years; c. a fine of up to $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss; d. a mandatory special assessment of $100; e. payment of mandatory restitution in an amount to be determined by the Court; and f. assessment to the defendant of the costs of prosecution (as defined in 28 U.S.C. 1918(b) and 1920). 5. Revocation of Supervised Release. The defendant understands that if the defendant were to violate any condition of supervised release, the defendant could be sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment up to the length of the original supervised release term, subject to the statutdry maximums set forth in 18 U.S.C Guideline Calculations. The parties acknowledge that the defendant will be sentenced in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 3551, et seq. Nothing in this plea agreement should be construed to limit the parties from presenting any and all relevant evidence to the Court at sentencing. The parties also acknowledge that the Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines in determining the appropriate sentence and stipulate to the following Guideline calculations: 9

13 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 13 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 10 of 14 a. Base Offense Level. The parties agree that the base offense level for conspiracy to commit mail fraud is 7. (U. S S.G. 2X1.1(a), 2B1.1(a)(1)). b. Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 24 levels because the loss amount was more than $65,000,000 but less than $150,000,000, (U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(M)), that the offense level should be increased by 6 levels because the offense resulted in substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims, (U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(a)(2)(C)), and that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels because a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States and because the offense otherwise involved sophisticated means and the defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means, (U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(a)(10)(B) & (C)). The parties agree that no other specific offense characteristics apply. d. Chapter 3 Adjustments. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 4 levels because the defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants and was otherwise extensive, (U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(a)). c. Acceptance of Responsibility. The government agrees to recommend that the defendant receive a 3-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility and to make any appropriate motions with the Court. However, the defendant understands and agrees that this recommendation is conditioned upon the following: (i) the defendant testifies truthfully during the change of plea and sentencing hearings, (ii) the defendant provides complete and truthful information to the Probation Office, in the pre-sentence investigation, and (iii) the defendant commits no further acts inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. (U.S.S.G. 3E1.1). The parties agree that other than as provided for herein no other Chapter 3 adjustments apply. d. Criminal History Category. Based on information available at this time, the parties believe that the defendant's criminal history category is I. This does not constitute a stipulation, but a belief based on an assessment of the information currently known. Defendant's actual criminal history and related status (which might impact the defendant's adjusted offense level) will be determined by the Court based on the information presented in the Presentence Report and by the parties at the time of sentencing. 10

14 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 14 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 11 of 14 e. Guideline Range. If the offense level is 40, and the criminal history category is I, the Sentencing Guidelines range would be 292 to 365 months of imprisonment. Because the statutory maximum sentence for a violation of 18 U.S.C is 20 years, the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range is 240 months of imprisonment. f. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 40, the fine range is $50,000 to $500,000. (U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(c)(3)). g. Supervised Release. The Sentencing Guidelines require a term of supervised release of at least one year but not more than three years. (U.S.S.G. 5D1.2). h. Sentencing Recommendation and Departures. The parties reserve the right to make a motion for departures from the applicable Guidelines range and to oppose any such motion made by the opposing party. The parties reserve the right to argue for a sentence outside the applicable Guidelines range. 7. Discretion of the Court. The foregoing stipulations are binding on the parties, but do not bind the Court. The parties understand that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and their application is a matter that falls solely within the Court's discretion. The Court may make its own determination regarding the applicable Guidelines factors and the applicable criminal history category. The Court may also depart from the applicable Guidelines range. If the Court determines that the applicable Guideline calculations or the defendant's criminal history category are different from that stated above, the parties may not withdraw from this agreement, and the defendant will be sentenced pursuant to the Court's determinations. 8. Special Assessment. The Guidelines require payment of a special assessment in the amount of $100 for each felony count of which the defendant is 11

15 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 15 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 12 of 14 convicted. (U.S.S.G. 5E1.3). The defendant agrees to pay the special assessment prior to sentencing. 9. Restitution. The defendant understands and agrees that the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, applies and that the Court is required to order the defendant to make restitution to the victims of his crime. There is no agreement as to the amount of restitution. The defendant understands and agrees that the Court may order the defendant to make restitution to any victim of the scheme regardless of whether the victim was named in the Indictment or the specific count of conviction. The defendant represents that the defendant will fully and completely disclose to the United States Attorney's Office the existence and location of any assets in which the defendant has any right, title, or interest. The defendant agrees to assist the United States in identifying, locating, returning, and transferring assets for use in payment of restitution and fines ordered by the Court. The defendant agrees to complete a financial statement fully and truthfully before the date of sentencing. The defendant agrees to participate fully and truthfully in a deposition regarding his assets prior to sentencing if requested by the government. 10. Forfeiture. The defendant agrees to forfeit all property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to Count 1 of the Indictment. The government reserves its right to seek the direct forfeiture of specific assets, a money judgment forfeiture against the defendant, and the forfeiture of substitute property pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853(p), as incorporated by 28 U.S.C. 2461(c). 12

16 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 16 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 13 of Collateral Consequences. The defendant understands that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to his immigration status, including removal or deportation, if he is not a citizen of the United States. The defendant understands that no one, including his attorney, the Assistant United States Attorney or the district court, can predict to a certainty the effect of his conviction on his immigration status. Regardless of any immigration consequences that may follow from his guilty plea, even automatic removal or deportation from the United States, the defendant still wishes to plead guilty as set forth in this agreement. 12. Waiver of Appeal. The defendant understands that 18 U.S.C affords the defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case. Acknowledging this right, and in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement, the defendant hereby waives all rights conferred by 18 U.S.C to appeal the defendant's sentence, unless the sentence exceeds 240 months' imprisonment. The defendant has discussed these rights with the defendant's attorney. The defendant understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 13. FOIA Requests. The defendant waives all rights to obtain, directly or through others, information about the investigation and prosecution of this case under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552, 552A

17 Case AJC Doc 161 Filed 04/30/18 Page 17 of 17 CASE 0:17-cr MJD-HB Document 55 Filed 04/19/18 Page 14 of Complete Agreement. This is the entire agreement and understanding between the United States and the defendant. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, or understandings. Date: ).9-DIS GREGORY G. BROOKER United States Attorney I3Y: KIMBE. SVENDSEN JOSEPH H. TH SON Assistant U.S. Attorneys Date: ANTO IOC Defend t ANELI Date: 17/ ) / DANIEL M. SCOTT, ESQ. Counsel for Defendant 14