Common use of Offense Level Calculations Clause in Contracts

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level is 6 pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(2). ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should be increased by 14 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,000. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagrees. iv. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagrees. v. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees. vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 3B1.3 because defendant abused a position of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct. vii. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2-level reduction in the offense level will be appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viii. The parties agree that, in accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that the offense level determined prior to the operation of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greater, the government will move for an additional 1-level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b).

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that base offense level is 7, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(1). ii. Pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(L), the base offense level is 6 pursuant increased by 22 levels to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(2)reflect a loss of approximately $48,800,000, which is more than $20,000,000 but less than $50,000,000. iiiii. The parties further agree government’s position is that the offense substantially jeopardized the safety and soundness of a financial institution, and consequently, the base offense level should be is increased by 14 4 levels under pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,000. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means§3A1.1(b)(15)(b)(I). Defendant disagreesdisagrees that this enhancement applies. iv. It is the government’s position that the offense The use of false documents, fictitious names, and shell entities, constituted sophisticated means pursuant to Guideline §2B1.1(b)(10)(C), resulting in a 2 level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result increase of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagreeslevel. v. It is the governmentDefendant’s position is that he was a minor participant in the criminal activity pursuant to Guideline §3B1.2(b) resulting in a 2 level decrease of the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under level. The government disagrees that this Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagreesprovision applies. vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 3B1.3 because defendant abused a position of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct. vii. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be is appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viiivii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1-one- level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that Pursuant to § 2X1.1, the base offense level is 6 determined based on the Sentencing Guidelines calculations applicable to the underlying offenses, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B) and (2)), which are grouped pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(23D1.2(c) and (d). ii. The parties further agree that Pursuant to Guideline § 2C1.1(a)(2), the base offense level should be increased by 14 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,00012. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) 2C1.1(b)(1), a 2-level increase is appropriate because the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagreesmore than one bribe. iv. It Pursuant to Guideline §§ 2C1.1(b)(2) and 2B1.1(b)(1)(N), a 26-level increase is appropriate, because the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result value of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagreesbenefit obtained in exchange for the payments exceeded $150,000,000. v. It Pursuant to Guideline § 2C1.1(b)(3), a 4-level increase is the government’s position that appropriate because the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was involved an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagreeselected public official. vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 3B1.3 because defendant abused a position of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct. vii. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be is appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viiivii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1one-level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level for the charge in the indictment is 6 7, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(22B1.1(a)(1). ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should must be increased by 14 levels under 18 levels, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) 2B1.1(b)(1)(J), because the amount of the loss incurred caused by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the defendant’s offense and relevant conduct is was more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,0002,500,000. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagrees. iv. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagrees. v. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees. vi. The parties further agree that the offense level should must be increased by an 4 additional levels, pursuant to Guideline §2B1.1(b)(2)(B), because defendant’s offense involved 50 or more victims. iv. The parties further agree that the offense level must be increased by an additional 2 levels under levels, pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.3 §2B1.1(b)(9)(C), because defendant’s offense involved the violation of a prior specific administrative order. v. The parties further agree that the offense level must be increased by an additional 2 levels, pursuant to Guideline §3B1.1(c), because the defendant abused a position of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission was an organizer, leader, manager, and concealment supervisor of the offense and relevant conductcriminal activity. viivi. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be is appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viiivii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1-one- level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level for the charge in the information is 6 6, pursuant to Guideline § Section 2B1.1(a)(2). ii. The parties further agree that Pursuant to Guideline Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(O), the base offense level should be is increased by 14 28 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the total amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of resulting from the offense and relevant conduct is more greater than $400,000 200 million, but not more less than $1,000,000400 million. iii. It is the government’s position that Pursuant to Guideline Section 2B1.1(b)(2)(C), the offense level should be is increased by 6 levels because the offense involved 250 or more victims. iv. Pursuant to Guideline Section 2B1.1(b)(10), the offense level is increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States and the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagrees. iv. It is the government’s position that v. Pursuant to Guideline Section 3B1.1(a), the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagrees. v. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees.; vi. The parties agree that Pursuant to Guideline Section 3A1.1(b), the offense level should would be increased by 2 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.3 because the defendant abused a position of trust in a manner knew that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment many of the victims of this offense and relevant conductwere vulnerable victims due to, among other things, their age; however, pursuant to the Application Note for Guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(2), this enhancement does not apply since the enhancement for 250 or more victims also applies. vii. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline § Section 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be is appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § Section 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline Section 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two- level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1one-level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level is 6 7, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(22B1.1(a)(1).; ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should be is increased by 14 16 levels under pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H§2B1.1(b)(1)(I) because the aggregate loss amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of arising from the offense of conviction and all relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more 1 million and less than $1,000,000.2.5 million; iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be is increased by 2 two levels under pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C§2B1.1(b)(11)(C)(i) because the offense involved the unauthorized use of a means of identification to produce and relevant conduct involved sophisticated meansobtain another means of identification. Defendant disagrees.The defendant disagrees that this Guideline is applicable to the facts of this case; iv. It is the government’s position that the The offense level should be is increased by 2 two levels under pursuant to Guideline § §2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because the defendant derived more than $1,000,000 1 million in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, institution as a result of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagrees.offense; v. It is the government’s position that the The offense level should be is increased by 4 two levels under pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees. vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § §3B1.3 because the defendant abused a position of private trust and used special skill as a certified public accountant in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct.offense; viivi. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, defendant should receive a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be appropriatelevel. The At the present time, given that the defendant is disputing the application of certain guidelines, the government reserves its position on the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at adjustment until the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a)sentencing. viiivii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § §3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficientlyefficiently within the meaning of Guideline §3E1.1(b). ThereforeAccordingly, if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that the offense level determined prior to the operation of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterdefendant’s sentencing, the government will move for an additional 1one-level reduction in the offense level pursuant if the Court determines that defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct within the meaning of Guideline §3E1.1(a) and the Court determines the offense level to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)be 16 or greater prior to determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level is 6 18, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(22G2.2(a)(1). ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should be is increased by 14 2 levels to level 20 pursuant to Guideline 2G2.2(b)(2), because images defendant possessed involved prepubescent minors and minors under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount age of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,000twelve years. iii. It is The government contends, and the government’s position defendant reserves the right to disagree, that the offense level should be is increased by 4 levels to level 24 pursuant to Guideline 2G2.2(b)(4), because the offense involved material that portrays sadistic or masochistic conduct or depictions of violence. iv. The offense level is increased by 2 levels under to level 26 pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) 2G2.2(b)(6), because the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagrees. iv. It is the government’s position that use of a computer for the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result possession of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagreesmaterial. v. It The offense level is the government’s position that increased by 5 levels to level 31 pursuant to Guideline 2G2.2(b)(7)(D), because the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five 600 or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees.more vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 3B1.3 because defendant abused a position of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct. vii. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viiivii. The parties agree that, in accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), If the Court determines that defendant has timely notified fully accepted responsibility within the government meaning of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) ), and that the offense level determined is 16 or higher prior to the operation application of Guideline any reduction for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greater), the government will move for an additional 1one-level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b).3E1.1

Offense Level Calculations. i. Pursuant to Guideline § 3D1.2(d), Counts One and Two are grouped for purposes of determining the offense level. ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level is 6 6, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(2). iiiii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should be is increased by 14 levels under 12 levels, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) 2B1.1(b)(1)(G), because the loss amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 250,000, but not more less than $1,000,000. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) because the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagrees550,000. iv. It is the government’s position that the The offense level should be is increased by 2 levels under levels, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) 2B1.1(b)(9)(A), because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagreesinvolved a misrepresentation that defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable organization and/or a government agency. v. It is the government’s position that the The offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees. vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be is increased by 2 levels under offense levels, pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.3 3B1.3, because defendant abused a position of public trust in a manner that significantly facilitated committing the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conductoffense. viivi. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his her criminal conduct within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viiivii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his her intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1one-level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level is 6 7, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(22B1.1(a)(1), because the offense of conviction has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more. ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should be increased by 14 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,000. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be is increased by 2 levels under 14 levels, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) 2B1.1(b)(1)(H), because the offense total amount of defendant’s gain was more than $550,000 and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagrees. ivless than $1,500,000. It is the governmentdefendant’s position that the offense level should be is increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) 8 levels, because defendant derived the defendant’s gain was more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result 95,000 but less than $150,000. Defendant reserves the right to dispute the amount of the offense loss and relevant conduct. Defendant disagreesthe resulting Guidelines enhancement. v. It iii. The offense level is the government’s position that increased by two levels, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), because the offense involved sophisticated means and defendant intentionally engaged in or caused the conduct constituting sophisticated means. iv. The offense level should be is increased by 4 levels under four levels, pursuant to Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) 2B1.1(20)(A), because defendant was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagrees. vi. The parties agree that the offense level should be increased by 2 levels under Guideline § 3B1.3 because defendant abused involved a position violation of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct. vii. If the Court determines securities law and, at the time of sentencing that the offense, the defendant was an officer or a director of a publicly traded company. v. Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be is appropriate. The government reserves the right to take whatever position it deems appropriate at the time of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a). viiivi. The parties agree that, in accord In accordance with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1one-level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.

Offense Level Calculations. i. The parties further agree that the base offense level for the offense of conviction is 6 20, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(a)(22B3.1(a). ii. The parties further agree that the base offense level should be increased by 14 levels under Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) because the amount of the loss incurred by Western Springs (and its successor bank) and the FDIC as a result of for the offense and relevant conduct is more than $400,000 but not more than $1,000,000. iii. It is the government’s position that the offense level should of conviction must be increased by 2 levels under to level 22, pursuant to Guideline § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C) 2B3.1(b)(1), because property of a financial institution was taken. iii. The offense level for the offense and relevant conduct involved sophisticated means. Defendant disagreesof conviction must be increased by 3 levels to level 25, pursuant to § 2B3.1(b)(2)(E), because a dangerous weapon was brandished or possessed. iv. It The base offense level for the stipulated criminal conduct is 20, pursuant to Guideline § 2B3.1(a). v. The Government contends, and the government’s position Defendant reserves the right to disagree that the offense level should for the stipulated criminal conduct must be increased by 2 5 levels under Guideline to level 25, pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(15)(A) 2B3.1(b)(2)(C), because defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from a financial institution, namely, Western Springs, as a result of the offense and relevant conduct. Defendant disagrees. v. It is the government’s position that the offense level should be increased by 4 levels under Guideline § 3B1.1 (a) because defendant firearm was an organizer and leader of criminal activity that involved five brandished or more participants or was otherwise extensive. Defendant disagreespossessed. vi. The parties agree that offense levels for the offense of conviction and the stipulated criminal conduct are not grouped pursuant to § 3D1.2(d). The combined offense level should be is increased by 2 levels under Guideline to level 27, pursuant to § 3B1.3 because defendant abused a position of trust in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission and concealment of the offense and relevant conduct3D1.4(a). vii. If the Court determines at the time of sentencing that defendant Defendant has clearly demonstrated a recognition and affirmative acceptance of personal responsibility for his criminal conduct conduct. If the government does not receive additional evidence in conflict with this provision, and if defendant continues to accept responsibility for his actions within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a), including by furnishing the United States Attorney’s Office and the Probation Office with all requested financial information relevant to his ability to satisfy any fine and or restitution order that may be imposed by the Court in this case, a 2two-level reduction in the offense level will be is appropriate. The government reserves Defendant acknowledges that if he falsely denies or frivolously contests facts which the right court determines to take whatever be true, such action would be inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility and the government's position it deems appropriate at as to the time defendant's acceptance of sentencing with respect to whether defendant has accepted responsibility within the meaning of Guideline § 3E1.1(a)could change. viii. The parties agree that, in In accord with Guideline § 3E1.1(b), defendant has timely notified the government of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the Court to allocate its resources efficiently. Therefore, as provided by Guideline § 3E1.1(b), if the government takes the position at the time of sentencing that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1 (a) and the Court agrees, finding that defendant qualifies for a decrease under Guideline § 3E1.1(a) and that determines the offense level determined to be 16 or greater prior to the operation determining that defendant is entitled to a two-level reduction for acceptance of Guideline § 3E1.1(a) is level 16 or greaterresponsibility, the government will move for an additional 1-one- level reduction in the offense level pursuant to Guideline § 3E1.1(b)level.