United States v. Rahal
| Decision Date | 01 November 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:09-cr-0040 TLN,No. 2:09-cr-0145 TLN,No. 2:08-cr-0566 TLN,No. 2:10-cr-0061 TLN,No. 2:10-cr-0059 TLN,No. 2:09-cr-0062 TLN,No. 2:09-cr-0468 TLN,No. 2:09-cr-0351 TLN,2:08-cr-0566 TLN,2:09-cr-0040 TLN,2:09-cr-0062 TLN,2:09-cr-0145 TLN,2:09-cr-0351 TLN,2:09-cr-0468 TLN,2:10-cr-0059 TLN,2:10-cr-0061 TLN |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RANDALL LEE RAHAL, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES RICHARD WAHL, JR., Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JENNIFER LOU DAHLMAN, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT C. TURNER, JR. Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY SHERMAN BEASLEY, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ALAN SCOTT HUEY, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN JAMES KING, Defendant. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. FREDERICK S. SALYER, Defendant. |
These criminal actions arise from conduct of the various defendants constituting bribery and conspiracy to commit commercial bribery, honest services fraud, racketeering, price fixing, and the shipping and introduction of misbranded and adulterated food products. The prosecutions and issues arising therein with respect to sentencing, particularly with respect to restitution, if any, to be imposed as part of the judgments of conviction have a lengthy and somewhat tortured history. Below, the undersigned will attempt to summarize the relevant history as succinctly as possible.
On March 23, 2012, defendant Frederick S. Salyer ("Salyer"), entered pleas of guilty to one count of racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and one count of price fixing in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1 pursuant to a plea agreement filed with the court that same day. United States v. Salyer, No. 2:10-cr-0061 TLN, Dkt. Nos. 478 at 3 & 479.1) A three-page factual basis for the plea was attached to that plea agreement and provided, in relevant part, as follows:
(1) between January 2004 and April 2008, bribes and kickbacks were paid to purchasing managers of several customers of Salyer's SK Foods, L.P. ("SK Foods"), a processor of tomato and other food products; (2) the purchasing managers, in return, "promoted SK Foods's interests at the expense of the interests of their employers," the customers of SK Foods; (3) those customers included Kraft Foods, Inc., and Frito-Lay, Inc.; (4) defendant Salyer was the Chief Executive Officer of SK Foods and the bribes were paid with his knowledge and encouragement; and (5) from January 2006 until June of 2007, defendant Salyer also participated in a conspiracy to fix the prices of tomato paste sold to McCain Foods, USA, Inc.
(United States v. Salyer, No. 2:10-cr-0061 TLN, Plea Agreement (Dkt. No. 478) at 16-17.)
The plea agreement was presented to the court pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure with the parties agreeing that the total term of imprisonment should be no less than four years and no more than seven years, with the government agreeing to recommend no more than seven years and the defendant agreeing to seek a prison term of no less than four years. (Id. at 2, 5-6.) The government also agreed to move, at the time of sentencing to dismiss the remaining counts of the indictment against defendant Salyer. (Id. at 6.) Thedefendant unconditionally agreed to waive his right to appeal the conviction and any aspect of his sentence, including specifically giving up his right to appeal any order of restitution the court might impose. (Id. at 12.) In addition, defendant Salyer agreed to forfeit to the United States any interest in $3.25 million in funds that were transferred from Volksbank in Liechtenstein to Credit Andorra on January 5, 2010. (Id. at 4.) The plea agreement provided that there was no agreement between the parties as to the appropriate fine, if any, to be imposed. (Id. at 3-4.) Finally, as to the subject of restitution, the plea agreement of the parties provided as follows:
The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act requires the Court to order restitution to the victims of the offenses to which the defendant is agreeing to plead guilty. The defendant and the government have no agreement on the appropriate amount of restitution. The defendant reserves the right to contest any restitution claim in this criminal case, and herein merely acknowledges that he has notice of the claims that have been made against the bankruptcy estate of SK Foods L.P. based on the facts alleged in this case. The defendant understands that this agreement cannot bind any third party. If the court does order restitution, payment should be made by cashier's or certified check made payable to the Clerk of the Court. The defendant further agrees that he will not seek to discharge any restitution obligation or any part of such obligation in any personal bankruptcy proceeding. The defendant further understand that it is the Department of Justice policy, whenever possible, to use forfeiture proceeds to compensate victims of the crimes underlying the forfeiture, and under the law, such payments are credited against the amount of any restitution order.
(Id. at 3.)
On February 12, 2013, in keeping with the terms of his plea agreement defendant Salyer was committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons for concurrent terms of seventy-two months to be followed by concurrent supervised release terms of thirty-six months, imposition of a fine was waived based upon a finding that the defendant was unable to pay a fine, and the mandatory special assessments totaling $200 were imposed. (Dkt. Nos. 559 & 560.) The preliminary order of forfeiture was made final and the matter of restitution was continued for hearing to March 12, 2013. (United States v. Salyer, No. 2:10-cr-0061 TLN, Dkt. No. 559.) After receiving additional briefing from the government, defendant Salyer and one of the identified victims on the issue of restitution, on March 12, 2013, the then assigned District Judge held a restitution hearing and declined to enter a restitution order. (United States v. Salyer, No.2:10-cr-0061 TLN, Dkt. No. 567.) Thereafter, an amended judgment was entered. (United States v. Salyer, No. 2:10-cr-0061 TLN, Dkt. No. 569.)
Following the remand, on April 1, 2013, the then assigned District Judge vacated the judgment as to restitution in defendant Salyer's case and referred the matter to the undersigned for the issuance of findings and recommendations with regard to whether an award of restitution was appropriate. (United States v. Salyer, No. 2:10-cr-0061 TLN, Dkt. No. 589.) On June 5, 2013, the matter came before the undersigned for a status conference, at which time a briefing schedule was set. (Id., Dkt. No. 623.) Pursuant to that briefing schedule, on September 13, 2013, the government filed its brief regarding restitution. (Id., Dkt. No. 638.) On October 3, 2013, Frito-Lay, Inc., ("Frito-Lay"), filed its brief regarding restitution. (Id., Dkt. No. 640.) That same day Kraft Foods, Inc., ("Kraft"), also filed a brief regarding restitution.2 (Id., Dkt. No. 641.) The following day The Morning Star Packing Company, L.P., and Liberty Packing Company, LLC,("Morning Star"), filed its brief regarding restitution. (Id., Dkt. No. 642.) On November 12, 2013, defendant Salyer filed his brief regarding restitution. (Id., Dkt. No. 644.) On November 26, 2013, reply briefs were filed by Morning Star, (Id., Dkt. No. 646), and the government. (Id., Dkt. No. 647.3)
The issue of defendant Salyer's restitution order was then taken under submission with the intention of issuing findings and recommendations for the consideration of the assigned District Judge. However, in mid-2015, the undersigned discovered that the issues with respect to restitution as to the other defendants named in the caption of these findings and recommendations had also been assigned to him for findings and recommendations either on the record during sentencing hearings or in judgments. Accordingly, on July 1, 2015, the undersigned issued an order setting each of the cases, other than defendant Salyer's, for status conference on July 29, 2015. At those status conferences, briefing schedules were set and the undersigned indicated that a global finding and recommendation would thereafter issue. The parties have submitted their supplemental briefs.
Below, the undersigned will first set forth the applicable law and legal standards governing restitution in federal criminal prosecutions. The undersigned will then address each of the eight cases, and the arguments with respect to restitution made by the parties therein, in turn.
To continue reading
Request your trial