Thornton plea agreement

7/31/2019 Thornton plea agreement

1/19


2/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and provided by the Court, appear and plead guilty to counts one

and two of the indictment in United States v. Lemuel Thornton, CR

No. 11-22-DMG, which charges defendant with Conspiracy to Commit

Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, and MoneyLaundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

b) Not contest facts agreed to in this agreement.

c) Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing

contained in this agreement.

d) Appear for all court appearances, surrender as

ordered for service of sentence, obey all conditions of any bond,

and obey any other ongoing court order in this matter.

e) Not commit any crime; however, offenses that would

be excluded for sentencing purposes under United States

Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G. or Sentencing Guidelines)

4A1.2(c) are not within the scope of this agreement.

f) Be truthful at all times with Pretrial Services, the

United States Probation Office, and the Court.

g) Pay the applicable special assessments at or before

the time of sentencing unless defendant lacks the ability to pay

and prior to sentencing submits a completed financial statement

on a form to be provided by the USAO.

h) Not seek the discharge of any restitution

obligation, in whole or in part, in any present or future

bankruptcy proceeding.

THE USAOS OBLIGATIONS

3. The USAO agrees to:

a) Not contest facts agreed to in this agreement.

2

Case 5:11-cr-00022-DMG Document 26 Filed 06/12/12 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:115


3/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b) Abide by all agreements regarding sentencing

contained in this agreement.

c) At the time of sentencing, provided that defendant

demonstrates an acceptance of responsibility for the offenses upto and including the time of sentencing, recommend a two-level

reduction in the applicable Sentencing Guidelines offense level,

pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3E1.1, and recommend and, if necessary,

move for an additional one-level reduction if available under

that section.

d) Recommend that defendant be sentenced to a term of

imprisonment no higher than the low end of the applicable

Sentencing Guidelines range, provided that the offense level used

by the Court to determine that range is 20 or higher and provided

that the Court does not depart downward in offense level or

criminal history category. For purposes of this agreement, the

low end of the Sentencing Guidelines range is that defined by the

Sentencing Table in U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A.

NATURE OF THE OFFENSES

4. Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of

the crime charged in count one (violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1349), the following must be true:

a. Beginning in or about January 2006 and continuing

through in or about March 2006, there was an agreement between

two or more persons to commit wire fraud;

b. Defendant knowingly devised and participated in a

scheme or plan to defraud, or a scheme or plan for obtaining

money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,

representations, or promises;

3



4/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. The statements made or facts omitted as part of

the scheme were material; that is, they had a natural tendency to

influence, or were capable of influencing, a person to part with

money or property;d. The defendant acted with the intent to defraud;

that is, the intent to deceive and cheat;

e. In carrying out or attempting to carry out an

essential part of the scheme, defendant used, or caused to be

used, the transmission of any writing, signal, or sound by means

of a wire communication in interstate commerce;

f. Defendant became a member of the conspiracy

knowing of its object and intending to help accomplish it.

Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of this

offense as described in count one of the indictment.

5. Defendant understands that for defendant to be guilty of

the crime charged in count two (violation of Title 18, United

States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)), the following must be

true:

a. Defendant conducted a financial transaction

involving property that represented the proceeds of wire fraud;

b. Defendant knew that the property represented the

proceeds of wire fraud; and,

c. Defendant knew that the transaction was designed

in whole or in part to conceal or disguise the nature, location,

source, ownership, or control of the proceeds of wire fraud.

Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of this

offense as described in count two of the indictment.

//

4



5/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PENALTIES AND RESTITUTION

6. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum

sentence that the Court can impose for a violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1349, is: 20 years imprisonment; a3-year period of supervised release; a fine of $250,000 or twice

the gross gain or gross loss resulting from the offense,

whichever is greatest; and a mandatory special assessment of

$100.

7. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum

sentence that the Court can impose for a violation of Title 18,

United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), is: 20 years

imprisonment, a 3-year period of supervised release; a fine of

$500,000 or twice the value of the property involved in the

transaction, whichever is greatest; and a mandatory special

assessment of $100.

8. Defendant understands, therefore, that the total maximum

sentence for all offenses to which defendant is pleading guilty

is: 40 years imprisonment; a 3-year period of supervised release;

a fine of $750,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss

resulting from the offenses, whichever is greatest; and a

mandatory special assessment of $200.

9. Defendant understands that defendant will be required to

pay full restitution to the victims of the offenses. Defendant

agrees that, in return for the USAOs compliance with its

obligations under this agreement, the amount of restitution is

not restricted to the amounts alleged in the counts to which

defendant is pleading guilty and may include losses arising from

charges not prosecuted pursuant to this agreement as well as all

5



6/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

relevant conduct in connection with those counts and charges.

The parties currently believe that the applicable amount of

restitution is approximately $800,541.57, but recognize and agree

that this amount could change based on facts that come to theattention of the parties prior to sentencing.

10. Defendant understands that supervised release is a

period of time following imprisonment during which defendant will

be subject to various restrictions and requirements. Defendant

understands that if defendant violates one or more of the

conditions of any supervised release imposed, defendant may be

returned to prison for all or part of the term of supervised

release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in

the term of supervised release, which could result in defendant

serving a total term of imprisonment greater than the statutory

maximum stated above.

11. Defendant understands that, by pleading guilty,

defendant may be giving up valuable government benefits and

valuable civic rights, such as the right to vote, the right to

possess a firearm, the right to hold office, and the right to

serve on a jury. Defendant understands that once the court

accepts defendants guilty plea, it will be a federal felony for

defendant to possess a firearm or ammunition. Defendant

understands that the conviction in this case may also subject

defendant to various other collateral consequences, including but

not limited to revocation of probation, parole, or supervised

release in another case and suspension or revocation of a

professional license. Defendant understands that unanticipated

collateral consequences will not serve as grounds to withdraw

6



7/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendants guilty plea.

12. Defendant understands that, if defendant is not a

United States citizen, the felony conviction in this case may

subject defendant to: removal, also known as deportation, whichmay, under some circumstances, be mandatory; denial of

citizenship; and denial of admission to the United States in the

future. The court cannot, and defendants attorney also may not

be able to, advise defendant fully regarding the immigration

consequences of the felony conviction in this case. Defendant

understands that unexpected immigration consequences will not

serve as grounds to withdraw defendants guilty plea.

FACTUAL BASIS

13. Defendant admits that defendant is, in fact, guilty of

the offenses to which defendant is agreeing to plead guilty.

Defendant and the USAO agree to the statement of facts provided

below and agree that this statement of facts is sufficient to

support pleas of guilty to the charges described in this

agreement and to establish the Sentencing Guidelines factors set

forth in paragraph 15 below but is not meant to be a complete

recitation of all facts relevant to the underlying criminal

conduct or all facts known to either party that relate to that

conduct.

The Gray Fox Property

In or about January 2006, defendant THORNTON, with the

assistance of individuals known and unknown, prepared a Uniform

Residential Loan Application (URLA) for himself and his wife,

K.T., to purchase a house at an address on Gray Fox Drive in

Canyon Lake, California (the "Gray Fox Property"). The URLA that

7



8/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defendant prepared contained materially false statements about

employment, income, and the use of the property. Defendant knew

that said URLA would be submitted to a mortgage lender to obtain

monetary funds from the mortgage lender for the purchase of theGray Fox Property. Specifically, the URLA showed that the

property was to be the buyers primary residence when in fact the

Gray Fox Property was to be an investment property.

Additionally, K.T.s employment was listed as a loan processor

earning $11,500 a month, when in fact K.T. was a notary and her

monthly income was substantially less than $11,500 month.

Defendants employment title was misstated as a finance manager

for an automobile company, earning a salary of $5,900 monthly

with monthly bonuses totaling $4,000, when in fact he was a

salesperson for the automobile company, earned substantially less

than $5,900 monthly, and did not earn monthly bonuses of $4,000.

In or about January 2006, individuals known and unknown to the

Grand Jury submitted the URLA to lender Residential Mortgage &

Investment, Inc. ("RMI") in Mission Viejo, California.

On or about January 27, 2006, co-conspirator K.J. provided

to La Rue Escrow, Inc., in Sun City, California, a demand letter

from a fictitious company called Johnson Construction to be used

in the purchase of the Gray Fox Property. The demand letter

stated: "This is a formal demand in the amount of $164,100 to be

disbursed to Johnson Construction to be used for upgrades,

repairs, and landscaping for the property located at xxxxx Gray

Fox Drive, Canyon Lake, CA 92587." On or about February 6, 2006,

co-conspirator K.J. and other co-conspirators caused La Rue

Escrow, Inc. to send approximately $164,100 by interstate wire

8



9/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

transfer to an account controlled by co-conspirator K.J. at Bank

of America in Riverside, California, for the payment to Johnson

Construction.

On or about February 6, 2006, in Riverside County,California, co-conspirator K.J. wrote and gave a check to

defendant in the amount of $164,100. Defendant accepted this

check from co-conspirator K.J., knowing that the money

represented the proceeds of the above-described scheme.

Defendant also knew that the purpose of co-conspirator K.J.s

writing this check to defendant was to conceal and disguise the

nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds

of the scheme to defraud RMI at the time of the purchase of the

Gray Fox Property.

On or about January 2, 2007, defendant THORNTON sold the

Gray Fox Property to D.T. Defendant THORNTON asked D.T. to sign

documents to purchase the house so that it would not go into

foreclosure. Upon reviewing the URLA for the Gray Fox Property,

D.T. said that the $24,000 monthly income listed in the URLA was

false, as D.T. was unemployed at the time and had been for

approximately six years prior. D.T. also stated that the credit

union accounts, assets, and IRA listed in the URLA were all

false.

On or about January 5, 2007, D.T. grant deeded the Gray Fox

Property to Property Division Inc., defendant THORNTONs company.

The Continental Drive Property

In or about February 2006, co-conspirator K.J., with the

assistance of individuals known and unknown to the Grand Jury,

prepared a URLA for co-conspirator K.J.s wife, A.J., to purchase

9



10/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a house at an address on Continental Drive in Canyon Lake,

California (the Continental Drive Property) that contained a

materially false statement about A.J.s employment, knowing that

said URLA would be submitted to a mortgage lender to obtainmonetary funds from the mortgage lender for the purchase of the

Continental Drive Property. Specifically, the URLA represented

that A.J. was a Field Manager at Harbor Torch, when in fact she

did not work at Harbor Torch.

In or about February 2006, A.J. signed the URLA prepared for

the purchase of the Continental Drive Property, at the direction

of co-conspirator K.J. Co-conspirator K.J. knew that the URLA

contained materially false statements about A.J.s employment.

Around the same time, individuals known and unknown to the Grand

Jury, at the direction of co-conspirator K.J., submitted the URLA

to lender The Mortgage Store Financial (The Mortgage Store).

On or about January 27, 2006, defendant and other co-

conspirators provided to Golden State Escrow, in Sun City,

California, a demand letter from a sham company called Thorntons

Property Development to be used in the purchase of the

Continental Drive Property. The demand letter stated: This is a

formal written demand in the amount of $207,899 to be disbursed

to Thorntons Property Development/in care of Lemuel Thornton to

be used for upgrades, repairs, and landscaping for the property

located at xxxxx Continental Dr., Canyon Lake, CA 92587. This

Money is due and payable at COE. No money is due if escrow falls

through. Wiring instructions to follow.

On or about March 6, 2006, defendant and other

co-conspirators caused Golden State Escrow to send approximately

10



11/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

$207,889 by interstate wire transfer to an account controlled by

defendant at Bank of America in Moreno Valley, California, for

the payment to Thorntons Property Development.

On or about March 7, 2006, in Riverside County, California,

defendant gave a check signed by defendants wife K.T. to co-

conspirator K.J. in the amount of $192,183.

SENTENCING FACTORS

14. Defendant understands that in determining defendants

sentence the Court is required to calculate the applicable

Sentencing Guidelines range and to consider that range, possible

departures under the Sentencing Guidelines, and the other

sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). Defendant

understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory only,

that defendant cannot have any expectation of receiving a

sentence within the calculated Sentencing Guidelines range, and

that after considering the Sentencing Guidelines and the other

3553(a) factors, the Court will be free to exercise its

discretion to impose any sentence it finds appropriate up to the

maximum set by statute for the crimes of conviction.

15. Defendant and the USAO agree to the following

applicable Sentencing Guidelines factors:

Base Offense Level : 7 U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(a)(1)U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(a)(1)

Specific OffenseCharacteristics

Conviction under : +2 U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(2)(B)18 U.S.C. 1956

////

11



12/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant and the USAO reserve the right to argue that additional

specific offense characteristics -- for example, loss amount

under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)-- adjustments, and departures under

the Sentencing Guidelines are appropriate.16. Defendant understands that there is no agreement as to

defendants criminal history or criminal history category.

17. Defendant and the USAO reserve the right to argue for a

sentence outside the sentencing range established by the

Sentencing Guidelines based on the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C.

3553(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(6), and (a)(7).

WAIVER OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

18. Defendant understands that by pleading guilty,

defendant gives up the following rights:

a) The right to persist in a plea of not guilty.

b) The right to a speedy and public trial by jury.

c) The right to be represented by counsel and if

necessary have the court appoint counsel - at trial. Defendant

understands, however, that, defendant retains the right to be

represented by counsel and if necessary have the court appoint

counsel at every other stage of the proceeding.

d) The right to be presumed innocent and to have the

burden of proof placed on the government to prove defendant

guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

e) The right to confront and cross-examine witnesses

against defendant.

f) The right to testify and to present evidence in

opposition to the charges, including the right to compel the

attendance of witnesses to testify.

12



13/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g) The right not to be compelled to testify, and, if

defendant chose not to testify or present evidence, to have that

choice not be used against defendant.

h) Any and all rights to pursue any affirmativedefenses, Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment claims, and other

pretrial motions that have been filed or could be filed.

WAIVER OF APPEAL OF CONVICTION

19. Defendant understands that, with the exception of an

appeal based on a claim that defendants guilty pleas were

involuntary, by pleading guilty defendant is waiving and giving

up any right to appeal defendants convictions on the offenses to

which defendant is pleading guilty.

LIMITED MUTUAL WAIVER OF APPEAL OF SENTENCE

20. Defendant agrees that, provided the Court imposes a

term of imprisonment within or below the range corresponding to

an offense level of 20 and the criminal history category

calculated by the Court, defendant gives up the right to appeal

all of the following: (a) the procedures and calculations used to

determine and impose any portion of the sentence; (b) the term of

imprisonment imposed by the Court; (c) the fine imposed by the

court, provided it is within the statutory maximum;(d) the

amount and terms of any restitution order, provided it requires

payment of no more than $950,000; (e) the term of probation or

supervised release imposed by the Court, provided it is within

the statutory maximum; and (f) any of the following conditions of

probation or supervised release imposed by the Court: the

standard conditions set forth in General Orders 318, 01-05,

and/or 05-02 of this Court; the drug testing conditions mandated

13



14/19


15/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BREACH OF AGREEMENT

24. Defendant agrees that if defendant, at any time after

the signature of this agreement and execution of all required

certifications by defendant, defendants counsel, and anAssistant United States Attorney, knowingly violates or fails to

perform any of defendants obligations under this agreement (a

breach), the USAO may declare this agreement breached. All of

defendants obligations are material, a single breach of this

agreement is sufficient for the USAO to declare a breach, and

defendant shall not be deemed to have cured a breach without the

express agreement of the USAO in writing. If the USAO declares

this agreement breached, and the Court finds such a breach to

have occurred, then: (a) if defendant has previously entered

guilty pleas pursuant to this agreement, defendant will not be

able to withdraw the guilty pleas, and (b) the USAO will be

relieved of all its obligations under this agreement.

COURT AND PROBATION OFFICE NOT PARTIES

25. Defendant understands that the Court and the United

States Probation Office are not parties to this agreement and

need not accept any of the USAOs sentencing recommendations or

the parties agreements to facts or sentencing factors.

26. Defendant understands that both defendant and the USAO

are free to: (a) supplement the facts by supplying relevant

information to the United States Probation Office and the Court,

(b) correct any and all factual misstatements relating to the

Courts Sentencing Guidelines calculations and determination of

sentence, and (c) argue on appeal and collateral review that the

Courts Sentencing Guidelines calculations and the sentence it

15



16/19

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

chooses to impose are not error, although each party agrees to

maintain its view that the calculations in paragraph 15 are

consistent with the facts of this case. While this paragraph

permits both the USAO and defendant to submit full and completefactual information to the United States Probation Office and the

Court, even if that factual information may be viewed as

inconsistent with the facts agreed to in this agreement, this

paragraph does not affect defendants and the USAOs obligations

not to contest the facts agreed to in this agreement.

27. Defendant understands that even if the Court ignores

any sentencing recommendation, finds facts or reaches conclusions

different from those agreed to, and/or imposes any sentence up to

the maximum established by statute, defendant cannot, for that

reason, withdraw defendants guilty pleas, and defendant will

remain bound to fulfill all defendants obligations under this

agreement. Defendant understands that no one - not the

prosecutor, defendants attorney, or the Court - can make a

binding prediction or promise regarding the sentence defendant

will receive, except that it will be within the statutory

maximum.

NO ADDITIONAL AGREEMENTS

28. Defendant understands that, except as set forth herein,

there are no promises, understandings, or agreements between the

USAO and defendant or defendants attorney, and that no

additional promise, understanding, or agreement may be entered

into unless in a writing signed by all parties or on the record

in court.

//

16



17/19



18/19



19/19


Thornton plea agreement

Documents

Transcript of Thornton plea agreement