Relevant Conduct. 16. The parties acknowledge, understand, and agree that pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3, the sentencing judge will consider relevant conduct in calculating the sentencing guidelines range, even if the relevant conduct is not the subject of the offense to which defendant is pleading guilty.
Relevant Conduct. In the years 2008 and 2010 through 2012, defendant XXXXXXXXX did willfully evade and defeat the payment of substantial income tax due and owing by defendant to the United States for calendar years 2008 and 2010 through 2012. Through 2011, XXXXXXXXX continued to be the sole shareholder and officer of Pagecomm. In 2011, XXXXXXXXX incorporated and became the president of PCW Holdings, a successor to Pagecomm which took over its distributorship agreement with Provider A. Provider A continued to deposit substantial gross revenues into Pagecomm’s bank account and, later, a bank account of PCW Holdings, both of which ECKERLING controlled. XXXXXXXXX used the money deposited by Provider A into Pagecomm’s, and then PCW’s, bank account to pay, among other things, income to himself. To conceal his income from and avoid reporting his income to the IRS for the years 2008 and 2010 through 2012, XXXXXXXXX caused Pagecomm, and then PCW, to pay him income through: (1) providing business checks made out directly to ECKERLING; (2) direct payments for personal items and expenses of ECKERLING; and (3) payments for charges to company credit card accounts for personal expenses of ECKERLING. In addition, in 2008, XXXXXXXXX used at least some of the $500 prepaid gift cards paid to Pagecomm by Individual A for inventory, as described above, to pay for personal items, such as landscaping services at his residence. XXXXXXXXX took additional steps to hide the income paid by Pagecomm and PCW to ECKERLING for 2008 and 2010 through 2012. For instance, XXXXXXXXX made false entries in the books and records of Pagecomm and PCW to hide the income paid by Xxxxxxxx and PCW to ECKERLING for 2008 and 2010 through 2012. ECKERLING caused Pagecomm and PCW to fail to maintain corporate records of income and expenses, including paychecks, W-2s and expense reports, in order to conceal his income. ECKERLING caused Pagecomm and PCW to fail to issue a W-2 to ECKERLING for income paid to him in years 2008 and 2010 through 2012. XXXXXXXXX also avoided maintaining records of his personal financial transactions, such as a bank account and credit cards in his name, to conceal his income. In addition, in 2011 and 2012, XXXXXXXXX added his wife to the payroll of Pagecomm, and later PCW Holdings, even though she did not work at either company and was employed elsewhere during that time. XXXXXXXXX added his wife to the payroll of Pagecomm, and later PCW Holdings, so he could obtain health insurance for his family ...
Relevant Conduct. The defendant acknowledges that during the April 18, 2002 interview and the May 31, 2002 proffer, the defendant made false representations that pertained to law enforcement searches. The government's evidence establishes that the defendant falsified material facts concerning four items of evidence that she placed at other law enforcement searches, and that the defendant made false representations during the proffer about those items and searches. The defendant does not contest the government's factual representations regarding these four incidents and agrees that the United States should be permitted to present such evidence as relevant conduct and such evidence is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that the defendant had placed material in each of these incidents and pretended to discover it as genuine potential evidence, not revealing the true facts know to her, for the purpose of misleading law enforcement officers about the matter under investigation. In addition, the government's evidence establishes that the defendant obstructed justice with respect to two additional witnesses. The defendant does not contest the government's factual representations regarding these two additional incidents of obstruction of justice and agrees that the United States should be permitted to present such evidence as relevant conduct and such evidence is sufficient beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that the defendant obstructed justice with regard to these two additional witnesses. The following is the government's evidence for the agreed relevant conduct:
