Count One definition

Count One. Methamphetamine distribution conspiracy: This count involves all the defendants and is based upon Xxxxxxx statements of four defendants, two SOI’s, a cooperating federal defendant, recorded jail calls, other recorded calls related to controlled drug buys or attempted buys, several controlled drug buys, drug seizures at three search warrants, seizures at three traffic stops, and other corroborating information gathered by investigators. The total conspiracy weight (historical and actual) exceeds 500 grams of methamphetamine.

Count One distribution conspiracy: This count involves all the defendants and is based upon intercepted calls on the Title III’s, interviews of non-indicted cooperators, post-arrest statements of several indictees, various SOI’s, recorded calls related to controlled drug buys or attempted buys, several controlled drug buys, drug seizures, and other corroborating information gathered by investigators. This count includes activities between XXXXXX and others where either XXXXXX would distribute cocaine or marijuana to them or obtain cocaine or marijuana from them, both for further distribution. It also involves attempted, planned, or conspired distribution activities. Specifically to Defendant XXXXX XXXXXXX, it includes a series of situations where he either obtained from XXXXXX, for later distribution to others, or was aware of or otherwise involved in others obtaining from XXXXXX, for later distribution, at least 100 kilos of marijuana. While the total conspiracy weight (historical and actual) exceeds 1000 kilograms of marijuana, Defendant XXXXX XXXXXXX’ involvement could be determined to be below that due to a lesser involvement in the conspiracy both in activities and time. Therefore, while the parties agree that XXXXX XXXXXXX’ drug level cannot be less than a level 26, the minimum level in 2D1.1 for the charge to which he is pleading, the parties further agree that they are free to address the drug level at sentencing should the pre-sentence investigation report or the Court determine a drug level other than a level 26.

Count One distribution conspiracy: This count involves all the defendants and is based upon intercepted calls on the Title III’s, interviews of non-indicted cooperators, post-arrest statements of several indictees, various SOI’s, recorded calls related to controlled drug buys or attempted buys, several controlled drug buys, drug seizures, and other corroborating information gathered by investigators. This count includes activities between XXXXXX and others where either XXXXXX would distribute cocaine or marijuana to them or obtain cocaine or marijuana from them, both for further distribution. It also involves attempted, planned, or conspired distribution activities. Specifically to Defendant Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx, it includes specific transactions where he obtained from XXXXXX, or was involved with or otherwise had knowledge of others obtaining from XXXXXX, for later distribution to others, at least 100 kilos of marijuana and 500 grams of cocaine. Those “specific transactions” include at least two occasions where Defendant Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx was captured on the wire intercepts discussing with XXXXXX the law enforcement presence and what to do about it, thereby assisting the conspiracy. While the total conspiracy weight (historical and actual) exceeds several kilograms of cocaine, 100 kilograms of marijuana, and more than 50 grams of crack cocaine, Defendant Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx’x involvement could be determined to be below that due to a lower level of involvement in activities or time. Therefore, while the parties agree that Xxxxx X. Xxxxxx’x drug responsibility level cannot be less than a 26, the minimum drug level under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1 for the drug charge to which he is pleading, the parties further agree that they are free to address the drug level at sentencing should the pre-sentence investigation report or the Court determine a drug level other than a level 26.

Examples of Count One in a sentence

• Defendant was read in open court Count One of the indictment and provided an explanation of the elements of the offense.

• Upon questioning, the government presented to this magistrate judge and to defendant a summary of the basis in fact for the offense charged in Count One and the evidence the government had available to establish, in the event defendant elected to go to trial, the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Defendant will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge contained in Count One of the indictment.

• Upon questioning, the defendant expressed his understanding of the maximum penalties prescribed by statute for the offense to which he was pleading guilty, namely: as to Count One, a term of imprisonment not less than ten (10) years and up to a maximum of life; a fine of not more than $20,000,000.00, or both, and a term of supervised release of at least ten years.

• The defendant indicated that he understood the maximum penalties for Count One and the potential consequences of the guilty plea.

• Therefore, I recommend that the court accept the guilty plea and that the defendant be adjudged guilty as to Count One of the indictment.

• The defendant, by consent, appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and entered a plea of guilty as to Count One of the indictment.

• Baldwin Anderson PSR ¶ 22.On June 14, 2011, after two days of trial, Anderson pled guilty to Count One of a twenty- nine count superseding indictment.

• The maximum imprisonment term for Count One and Two is twenty-five years, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1348, 1349, and the maximum term for Count Three is five years, 18 U.S.C. §371.Levier provided significant cooperation to the government.

• The defendant understands that upon his plea of guilty to Count One of the indictment charging him with conspiracy, the maximum penalty the Court may impose is not more than five years of imprisonment, a $250,000.00 fine, three years of supervised release, an order of restitution, and a $100.00 mandatory special assessment which must be paid in full at the time of sentencing.

More Definitions of Count One

Count One. The defendant admits that on or about August 20, 2008, in the District of Kansas, and elsewhere, for the purpose of executing a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations, he devised a plan which caused to be transmitted by means of wire communications in interstate commerce, signals and sounds which transferred money belonging to Xxxxxx and/or Juhree Ring in the amount of $70,000.00 from Boston, Massachusetts, to an account in New York, New York, so that the money could be provided to the defendant who represented that he was authorized to withdraw these funds when the defendant knew that this was a lie because Xxxxxx and/or Juhree Ring did not authorize this withdrawal.

Count One distribution conspiracy: This count involves all the defendants and is based upon intercepted calls on the Title III’s, interviews of non-indicted cooperators, post-arrest statements of several indictees, various SOI’s, recorded calls related to controlled drug buys or attempted buys, several controlled drug buys, drug seizures, and other corroborating information gathered by investigators. This count includes activities between XXXXXX and others where either XXXXXX would distribute cocaine or marijuana to them or obtain cocaine or marijuana from them, both for further distribution. It also involves attempted, planned, or conspired distribution activities. Specifically to Defendant Xxxxxx, it includes a series of actions by him and others concerning a plan to help XXXXXX hide marijuana after defendant Xxxxxxx’x house and brother’s house were searched by law enforcement. However, those were not Xxxxxx’ only activities within the conspiracy. Xxxxxx was also involved in at least two other separate overt acts involving powder cocaine. While the total conspiracy weight (historical and actual) exceeds several kilograms of cocaine and 1000 kilograms of marijuana, Defendant Xxxxxx’ involvement could be determined to be below that due to a lower level of involvement in terms of time, activities and amounts. Therefore, while the parties agree that his drug level should be not less than a level 18, based on a total, converted, drug weight of 23.8 kilograms of marijuana, the parties further agree that they are free to address the drug level at sentencing should the pre-sentence investigation report or the Court determine a drug level other than a level 18. This amount is based upon nine pounds of marijuana XXXXXX said he stored at Xxxxxx’ residence following the arrest of Xxxxxxx; Xxxxxx’ involvement in conspiracy group discussions following an arrest where three ounces of cocaine were recovered; Xxxxxx’ involvement in introducing to XXXXXX an individual later turned into a CI for buying cocaine from XXXXXX, and; a later ½ ounce cocaine distribution to that same CI from XXXXXX by Xxxxxx.

Count One. On or about and between November 1, 2005 and the date of the Information, the Defendant did unlawfully take an indeterminate number of migratory birds, including one purple xxxxxx, which died after contact with hydrocarbons contained in an open-topped oil tank operated by the Defendant or its agents in Xxxxxxxx County, in violation of Title 16, United States Code, Sections 703(a) and 707(a).

Count One. Methamphetamine distribution conspiracy: This count involves all the defendants and is based upon Xxxxxxx statements of four defendants, two SOI’s, a cooperating federal defendant, recorded jail calls, other recorded calls related to controlled drug buys or attempted buys, several controlled drug buys, drug seizures at three search warrants, seizures at three traffic stops, and other corroborating information gathered by investigators. While the total conspiracy weight (historical and actual) exceeds 500 grams of methamphetamine, due to XXXXXX’ limited involvement from a time standpoint, her exposure should be less than the total for the overall conspiracy.