Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Transcription

1 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff, 1. CEDRIC LIPSEY 2. PHILIP A. MARTINEZ Defendants. INDICTMENT 18 U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C U.S.C. 2 The Grand Jury charges: COUNTS 1-27 (Wire Fraud) 1. Beginning in or about April 2004, and continuing thereafter until about March 2006 in the District of Colorado and elsewhere, Defendant Cedric Lipsey, aided and abetted by Defendant, did knowingly devise and intend to devise a scheme to defraud lending companies that funded residential mortgage loans and for obtaining money 1

2 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 16 from them by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, hereinafter referred to as the scheme. 2. It was part of the scheme that: (a) Defendant Lipsey orchestrated the purchase and resale or refinancing of numerous residential properties, including the sale of one of his own homes, by paying individuals to participate as investors in what he referred to as an investment opportunity. Defendant assisted Lipsey by brokering loans for the investors, and assumed a role similar to Lipsey s in a few instances. The defendants arranged for false representations to be incorporated into the investors loan applications where necessary to facilitate the fraud. (b) Defendant Lipsey, a licensed real estate broker, held himself out as a successful real estate agent and investor. He promoted his scheme to individuals he met at church, through friends and relatives, and at self-help seminars, some of which he conducted himself. He purported to teach them how to legitimately acquire real properties and profit by reselling them without investing any money of their own. (c) The defendants arranged for these so-called investors to use their good credit to obtain mortgage loans to purchase the properties. Shortly after the first set of these individuals (hereinafter referred to as the first buyers ) had purchased their properties, Lipsey caused them to sell the properties to other such individuals (hereinafter referred to as the second buyers ) at substantially higher prices, with Lipsey and taking a 2

3 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 16 combination of commissions, fees, and proceeds from the first and second transactions. The First Buyers (d) Defendant Lipsey typically told the first buyers that he was not able to purchase any additional investment properties himself, but that he could use the buyers names and good credit to purchase the properties for less than market value, and arrange to resell them shortly thereafter at market value, assuring quick profits on the resales. (e) He told them that he would take care of all of the paperwork and be responsible for paying all of the necessary costs. He told them that they would only be required to hold the properties in their names for a short time. (f) They were willing to participate, understanding that Lipsey would receive most of the proceeds, because Lipsey would have orchestrated all aspects of the transactions, taken care of all of the paperwork, and made all of the necessary payments. For their participation, Lipsey paid them a certain amount (ranging from $3,000 to $15,000) after the property was resold. (g) Lipsey falsely represented that the first buyers would be purchasing and had purchased the properties for less than their actual market value. The first sales were not distressed, as the defendants sometimes represented to facilitate their fraud. In fact, the first buyers purchased the properties at or near their market value, and there was no legitimate reason for the substantial increase in price when the same properties were resold shortly thereafter. 3

4 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 16 The Second Buyers (h) Defendant Lipsey arranged for the second buyers to purchase the properties from the first buyers at substantially higher prices. As with the first buyers, he told the second buyers that he would take care of everything, and that they would not have to invest any money of their own. (i) Because of their limited involvement as investor buyers who intended neither to occupy the homes nor to invest any of their own funds, the second buyers did not critically evaluate prices they would be paying. Defendant Lipsey was thus able to select the prices the second buyers would pay. He falsely represented to them that they were paying market value, when in fact, they were paying more than market value. Neither Lipsey nor revealed to the second buyers the appraisal reports that they had had prepared for the first buyers recent purchases of the same properties, which stated that the market value for the same properties was substantially less. (j) Lipsey prepared sales contracts which falsely reflected that the first buyers were selling the properties on their own, without the assistance of a real estate agent. These contracts were designed to make it appear that the parties had negotiated a price, and that the sales were arms-length transactions, when they were not. (k) Lipsey created these contracts knowing that the mortgage lenders required appraisal reports which reflected that the properties were worth at least their sales price, and that certain appraisers would create appraisal reports valuing the properties at or above the 4

5 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 16 contract price, regardless of their true market value. (l) Having selected high-end properties for his scheme that were in the vicinity of properties that were substantially more valuable by virtue of their quality and/or location, Lipsey enabled certain appraisers to create reports which reflected that the subject properties were comparable to the higher quality or otherwise more valuable properties, when they were not. (m) In exchange for the second buyers participation, Lipsey represented to them that he would: (a) pay them a certain amount (ranging from $5,000 to $10,000) just after their purchases, and then manage the properties as rentals and make the mortgage payments until he resold the properties, or (b) pay them a larger sum (ranging from approximately $90,000 to $140,000), with which they could manage the properties as rentals and make the mortgage payments until he resold the properties. Acquisition of Loans for the Buyers (n) Once Defendant Lipsey was satisfied that his investors had good credit ratings, he introduced them to Defendant, a loan officer and mortgage broker. worked closely with Lipsey to facilitate the buyers acquisition of 100% or nearly 100% financing, which required no or only minimal down payments. typically found loans which also required little proof of the borrowers employment, assets, or income. (o) To assure the desired funding would be approved, the defendants arranged for false and fraudulent information about the borrowers qualifications to be provided to the 5

6 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 16 mortgage lenders. (p) Knowing that the buyers typically did not intend to reside in the properties they were acquiring as part of Lipsey s investment opportunity, Lipsey and caused the loan applications to falsely represent that the buyers intended to occupy the properties as their primary residences. This fraudulent owner/occupant characterization made the loans more attractive to the lenders and enabled the buyers to obtain 100% or nearly 100% financing. (q) At some of the closings, the lenders required the buyers sign affidavits of occupancy, representing that they would occupy the homes as their primary residences. To appease any buyers who expressed concern over making these misrepresentations, Lipsey offered false assurances that these misrepresentations would not matter because, for example, the buyers would be holding the property in their names for only a short time. (r) The defendants also caused many of the loan applications to falsely represent that the buyers would be renting their actual residences to third parties, and arranged for bogus leases to be created and submitted to the lenders in support of those applications. These falsehoods were designed to corroborate the false representations that the borrowers intended to be owner-occupants of the properties they were purchasing; they also served to reduce the amount of the borrowers stated expenses. (s) Defendant either simply overstated the borrowers income on the applications he prepared, or avoided obtaining specific details about the buyers income and created loan applications that stated whatever income was necessary to qualify them for the 6

7 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 16 desired loan amounts. Whenever necessary to make the substantial incomes look legitimate, he also falsified their job descriptions. (t) Lipsey and arranged to have a variety of other fraudulent documents be submitted to the lenders in support of the applications. These consisted primarily of documents purporting to show proof of the borrowers employment, proof of the borrowers assets, and sources of the borrowers assets. The defendants also used forged signatures where necessary to facilitate the scheme. (u) In cases in which the buyers purchased more than one property in Lipsey s investment program, Lipsey timed their subsequent purchases so as to best avoid any negative impact the prior purchase may have on the buyers subsequent loan applications. When necessary, prepared loan applications which failed to disclose the buyers ownership in and the mortgages against their previously purchased properties. This omission concealed not only the fact that those borrowers had significant additional debt, but also that they owned multiple properties, all of which they purportedly occupied or intended to occupy as their primary residences. (v) To make it appear to the lenders that the borrowers had provided the earnest money and/or down payments from their own funds when in fact, Lipsey or had provided those funds, the defendants had the buyers write checks for the necessary amounts and provide them to Lipsey or. The defendants would then either submit copies of the checks to the lenders in support of the applications without ever negotiating them, or 7

8 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 16 allow the buyers checks to be negotiated, but secretly reimburse the buyers. (w) Knowing that properties sold by their owners rather than through realtors would not appear in the Multi-Listing Service ( MLS ) publication, Lipsey falsely characterized the second sales in his scheme as for sale by owner in the contracts he prepared. In fact, Lipsey, not the investors, chose the properties, the sales prices, and other terms of the sales. By arranging for the properties not to appear in the MLS, Lipsey minimized the risks that the sales would be scrutinized by outsiders and that the scheme would be discovered. (x) Lipsey usually had the first buyers sign promissory notes pledging the proceeds of their sales to Platinum Real Estate Investments, LLC, an entity he controlled. On several occasions, Defendant acted as the second buyer, and arranged to pay the first buyer a fee for his participation and to receive the proceeds from the sales in which he became so involved. In those instances, usually obtained promissory notes from the first buyers pledging the proceeds of their sales to EFC (Elite Funding Corp.), an entity he and Lipsey had created and controlled. (y) By presenting these promissory notes to the closing agents prior to closing of the sales to the second buyers, Lipsey and facilitated the direct transfer of the proceeds from those sales to Platinum Real Estate Investments, LLC or Elite Funding Corp., while at the same time obscuring their true roles in the scheme. (z) On or about the dates listed below, closings on the purchases or refinancing of the following properties occurred, which were then funded by the named lending companies: 8

9 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 16 Date Property Address Lending Company 11/29/ Castle Cir, Broomfield, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 5/5/ Carriage Club Drive, Lone Tree, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 6/16/ Carriage Club Drive, Lone Tree, CO First Horizon Home Loan Corp. 5/19/ Harbor Side Blvd., Montgomery, TX South Star Funding, LLC 4/22/ Harbor Side Blvd., Montgomery, TX PHM Financial Incorporated 7/14/ Weeden Place, Lone Tree, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 9/24/ Weeden Place, Lone Tree, CO GMAC Bank/Wells Fargo Bank, NA 8/25/ Witney Place, Littleton, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 11/2/ Witney Place, Littleton, CO GMAC Bank/Wells Fargo Bank, NA 10/15/ Astoria Ct., Lone Tree, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Co. 12/31/ Astoria Ct., Lone Tree, CO GMAC Bank 11/1/ Carriage Club Dr., Lone Tree, CO Argent Mortgage Company, LLC 2/15/ Carriage Club Dr., Lone Tree, CO PHM Financial Incorporated th 11/8/ W. 113 Ct., Westminster, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Co. th 11/29/ W. 113 Ct., Westminster, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 11/23/ Decatur Cir., Westminster, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 12/27/ Decatur Cir., Westminster, CO Long Beach Mortgage Company 12/13/ S. Union Ct., Lakewood, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 3/11/ S. Union Ct., Lakewood, CO PHM Financial Incorporated 2/14/ Muirfield Cir., Broomfield, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 4/26/ Muirfield Cir., Broomfield, CO PHM Financial Incorporated 2/24/ Troon Cir., Broomfield, CO New Century Mortgage Corporation 4/15/ Troon Cir., Broomfield, CO First Franklin Financial Corp. 2/25/ Windhaven Dr., Parker, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Company 8/19/ Windhaven Dr., Parker, CO Aegis Wholesale Corporation 3/15/ Decatur Ct., Westminster, CO GMAC Bank/Wells Fargo Bank, NA 4/18/ Decatur Ct., Westminster, CO PHM Financial Incorporated 8/5/ Decatur Ct., Westminster, CO Aegis Wholesale Corporation 4/20/ S.Remington Pl., Castle Rock, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Company 9

10 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 16 6/22/ S. Remington Pl., Castle Rock, CO PHM Financial Inc./Wells Fargo Bank, NA 4/26/ Astoria Court, Lone Tree, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Company 6/3/ Astoria Court, Lone Tree, CO Long Beach Mortgage Company 5/27/ S. Cedar Hill Way, Lone Tree, CO First Franklin Financial Corporation 2/28/ S. Cedar Hill Way, Lone Tree, CO Aegis Wholesale Corporation 5/27/ Remington Place, Castle Rock, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Co. 8/31/ Remington Place, Castle Rock, CO Aegis Wholesale Corporation 6/3/ Twilight Ct., Longmont, CO Fieldstone Mortgage Company 7/1/ Twilight Ct., Longmont, CO PHM Financial Incorporated 6/29/ Nuthatch Cir., Parker, CO Long Beach Mortgage Company 8/24/ Nuthatch Cir., Parker, CO Aegis Wholesale Corporation 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 are incorporated into Counts 1 through 27, as though fully set forth in their entirety. 4. On or about the date listed below for each count, in the District of Colorado, the defendants named for each count did, for the purpose of executing the scheme set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of this indictment, knowingly cause writings, signs, and signals to be transmitted in interstate commerce from the state of New Jersey to the state of Colorado by means of wire communication, namely, a wire transfer of funds in the amount identified for that count in connection with a mortgage loan for the property identified for that count, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2 (a): 10

11 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 16 Count Date Defendant(s) Amount Property 1 11/30/04 Cedric Lipsey and 2 4/27/05 Cedric Lipsey and 3 9/27/04 Cedric Lipsey and 4 11/3/04 Cedric Lipsey and 5 1/3/05 Cedric Lipsey and 6 2/15/05 Cedric Lipsey and 7 11/8/04 Cedric Lipsey and 8 12/27/04 Cedric Lipsey and 9 3/11/05 Cedric Lipsey and 10 2/14/05 Cedric Lipsey and 11 4/26/05 Cedric Lipsey and 12 3/1/05 Cedric Lipsey and 13 4/15/05 Cedric Lipsey and $674, Castle Cir. Broomfield, CO $122, Harbor Side Blvd. Montgomery, TX $580, Weeden Pl. Lone Tree, CO $596, Witney Pl. Littleton, CO $99, Astoria Ct. Lone Tree, CO $505, Carriage Club Dr. Lone Tree, CO th $527, W. 113 Ct. Westminster, CO $148, Decatur Cir. Westminster, CO $533, S. Union Ct. Lakewood, CO $654, Muirfield Cir. Broomfield, CO $634, Muirfield Cir. Broomfield, CO $406, Troon Cir. Broomfield, CO $634, Troon Cir. Broomfield, CO 11

12 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 12 of /19/05 Cedric Lipsey and 15 3/15/05 Cedric Lipsey and 16 4/19/05 Cedric Lipsey and 17 8/5/ /20/05 Cedric Lipsey 19 6/22/05 Cedric Lipsey and 20 4/26/05 Cedric Lipsey and 21 6/3/05 Cedric Lipsey and 22 2/28/06 Cedric Lipsey and 23 5/27/05 Cedric Lipsey and 24 9/6/05 Cedric Lipsey and 25 7/1/05 Cedric Lipsey and 26 6/29/05 Cedric Lipsey and 27 8/24/05 Cedric Lipsey and $654, Windhaven Dr. Parker, CO $504, Decatur Ct. Westminster, CO $617, Decatur Ct. Westminster, CO $651, Decatur Ct. Westminster, CO $617, S. Remington Pl. Castle Rock, CO $997, S. Remington Pl. Castle Rock, CO $372, Astoria Ct. Lone Tree, CO $521, Astoria Ct. Lone Tree, CO $593, S. Cedar Hill Way Lone Tree, CO $601, Remington Pl. Castle Rock, CO $962, Remington Pl. Castle Rock, CO $634, Twilight Ct. Longmont, CO $500, Nuthatch Cir. Parker, CO $651, Nuthatch Cir. Parker, CO 12

13 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 16 COUNT 28 (Monetary Transaction in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity) 5. On or about November 30, 2004, in the District of Colorado, Defendant Cedric Lipsey did knowingly engage and attempt to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property, which property was derived from specified unlawful activity, namely, wire fraud, as defined in Title18, United States Code, Section 1343, by transferring cashier s check # , drawn on Compass Bank and payable to Cedric D. Lipsey in the amount of $109, to Lisa Anders and Empire Title North in connection with the real estate closing and settlement for the purchase of 4401 Augusta Drive, Broomfield, Colorado, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section COUNT 29 (Forfeiture: Wire Fraud) 6. The allegations contained in Counts 1 through 16 and 18 through 27 of this indictment are incorporated by reference here, as though fully set forth in their entirety. 7. Upon conviction of one or more of the violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 charged in Counts 1 through 16 and 18 through 27 of this indictment, Cedric Lipsey shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all of his rights, title and interests in all property constituting or derived from any gross proceeds that he obtained directly and indirectly as a result of such offense(s). 13

14 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 14 of The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to a money judgment against Cedric Lipsey in the amount of the proceeds obtained by him from such offense(s) that were obtained from or traceable to said offense(s). 9. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of Cedric Lipsey (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, (b) has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with, a third party, (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, (d) has been substantially diminished in value, or (e) has been commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of Cedric Lipsey up to the value of the forfeitable property. COUNT 30 (Forfeiture: Monetary Transaction in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity) 10. The allegations contained in Count 28 of this indictment are incorporated by reference here, as though fully set forth in their entirety. 11. Upon conviction of the violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 charged in Count 28 of this indictment, Cedric Lipsey shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) any and all of his rights, title and interests in all property involved in such offense, and any property traceable to such property. 12. The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a money judgment 14

15 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 16 which shall be entered against Cedric Lipsey in the amount of the money involved in such offense and that is traceable to money involved in said offense. 13. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of Cedric Lipsey, (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, (b) has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with, a third party, (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, (d) has been substantially diminished in value, or (e) has been commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), as incorporated by Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of Cedric Lipsey up to the value of the forfeitable property. Count 31 (Forfeiture: Wire Fraud) 14. The allegations contained in Counts 1 through 27 of this indictment are incorporated by reference here, as though fully set forth in their entirety. 15. Upon conviction of one or more of the violations of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343 charged in Counts 1 through 27 of this indictment, shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 981(a)(1)(C), and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), any and all of his rights, title and interests in all property constituting or derived from any gross proceeds that he obtained directly and indirectly as a result of such offense(s). 15

16 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 16 of The property to be forfeited includes, but is not limited to, a money judgment against in the amount of the proceeds obtained by him from such offense(s) that were obtained from or traceable to said offense(s). 17. If any of the property described above, as a result of any act or omission of Philip A. (a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence, (b) has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with, a third party, (c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the court, (d) has been substantially diminished in value, or (e) has been commingled with other property that cannot be subdivided without difficulty, it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), incorporated by Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c), to seek forfeiture of any other property of up to the value of the forfeitable property. A TRUE BILL DAVID M. GAOUETTE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Ink signature on file in the clerk s office FOREPERSON By: s/linda Kaufman Linda Kaufman Assistant United States Attorney 1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 700 Denver, Colorado Telephone: (303) Facsimile: (303) Linda.Kaufman@usdoj.gov Attorney for Government 16

17 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1-2 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1 DEFENDANT: Cedric Lipsey DATE: August 27, 2009 YOB: 1974 ADDRESS: Denver, Colorado COMPLAINT FILED? YES X NO IF YES, PROVIDE MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER: IF NO, PROCEED TO OFFENSE SECTION HAS DEFENDANT BEEN ARRESTED ON COMPLAINT? YES X NO IF NO, A NEW WARRANT IS REQUIRED OFFENSE: Counts 1-16, 18-27: Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C and 2; Count 28: Monetary Transaction in Property Derived from Specified Unlawful Activity (18 U.S.C. 1957); Count 29: Forfeiture (18 U.S.C. 981) Count 30: Forfeiture (18 U.S.C. 982) LOCATION OF OFFENSE: (COUNTY/CITY/STATE) Broomfield, Jefferson, Douglas Counties, Colorado; Montgomery, Texas. PENALTY: AGENT: Counts 1-16 and (Each Count): NMT 20 years imprisonment and/or NMT $250,000 fine; $ Special Assessment Fee; Count 28: NMT 10 years and/or NMT $250,000 fine; $100 Special Assessment Fee. Count 29: Forfeiture Count 30: Forfeiture Special Agent Scott Doner, F.B.I. AUTHORIZED BY: Linda Kaufman Assistant U.S. Attorney ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL: five days or less X over five days other THE GOVERNMENT X will seek detention in this case will not seek detention in this case The statutory presumption of detention is not applicable to this defendant. OCDETF CASE: Yes X No

18 Case 1:09-cr PAB Document 1-3 Filed 08/27/2009 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 1 DEFENDANT: DATE: August 27, 2009 YOB: 1975 ADDRESS: Denver, Colorado COMPLAINT FILED? YES X NO IF YES, PROVIDE MAGISTRATE CASE NUMBER: IF NO, PROCEED TO OFFENSE SECTION HAS DEFENDANT BEEN ARRESTED ON COMPLAINT? YES X NO IF NO, A NEW WARRANT IS REQUIRED OFFENSE: Counts 1-27: Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C and 2; Count 31: Forfeiture, 18 U.S.C. 981 LOCATION OF OFFENSE: Broomfield, Jefferson, Douglas Counties, Colorado; (COUNTY/CITY/STATE) Montgomery, Texas. PENALTY: Counts 1-27 (Each Count): NMT 20 years imprisonment and/or NMT $250,000 fine; $ Special Assessment Fee. Count 31: Forfeiture AGENT: Special Agent Scott Doner, F.B.I. AUTHORIZED BY: Linda Kaufman Assistant U.S. Attorney ESTIMATED TIME OF TRIAL: five days or less X over five days other THE GOVERNMENT will seek detention in this case X will not seek detention in this case The statutory presumption of detention is not applicable to this defendant. OCDETF CASE: Yes X No