FELED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 0 m3 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Clerk, o. s. District Court Eastern District ot Tennessee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. At Knoxville Plaintiff, . . vs. Case No. 3) Judge I BRIAN MOSHER, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT The United States of America, by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Tennessee, and the defendant, Brian Mosher, and the defendant's attomeys, Steven M. Kowal and Lauren N. Norris, have agreed upon the following: 1. The defendant will waive indictment and arraignment and plead guilty to an information charging the defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud in violation of I8 U.S.C. 1349. The punishment for this offense is as follows: up to twenty (20) years imprisonment, a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than three (3) years supervised release, and a mandatory assessment of $100, in addition to any applicable forfeiture and restitution. 2. The defendant has read the information, discussed the charges and possible defenses with defense counsel, and understands the crime charged. The defendant is pleading guilty because the defendant is in fact guilty. In order to be guilty of the offense of conspiracy to commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 5} 1349, as charged in the information, the defendant agrees that each of the following elements of the crime must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt: Defendanfs lnitials?k Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 17 Page|D 17 a) that there existed an agreement between two or more persons to commit mail fraud, an offense against the United States, that is, with the intent to defi'aud, to knowingly devise and intend to devise and to participate in a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and omissions, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, knowingly causes any matter or thing to be sent and delivered by mail or commercial interstate carrier, in violation of [8 U.S.C. 134] or (ii) wire fraud, an offense against the United States, that is, with the intent to defiaud, to knowingly devise and intend to devise and to participate in a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and omissions, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, to cause to be transmitted by means of wire in interstate commerce, writings, signs, and signals, in violation of IS U.S.C. 1343. b. that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily joined and participated in the conspiracy; and c. that an overt act was committed by at least one conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy. 3. In support of the defendant's guilty plea, the defendant agrees and stipulates to the following facts. which satisfy the offense elements. These are the facts submitted for purposes of the defendant's guilty plea. They do not necessarily constitute all of the facts in the case. Other facts may be relevant to sentencing. Both the defendant and the United States retain the right to present additional facts to the Court to ensure a fair and appropriate sentence in this case. a. Since before 2008, Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, (collectively referred to as "PiIot"), headquartered in Knoxville, Tennessee, have operated travel plazas throughout the United States and have served as one of the largest suppliers of diesel fuel to over- Defendant's Initials fl Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 2 of 17 Page|D 18 the-road trucking companies in the country. Through its "direct sales" division, which consists of national and regional vice presidents, sales directors, sales managers, account representatives, and others, Pilot induces its trucking company customers to purchase its diesel fuel by offering various incentives, including diesel fiiel price discounts. b. Defendant Mosher has been employed in Pilot's direct sales division for more than ten years. Since before 2008, Defendant Mosher has served as a regional sales director in Pilot's direct sales division. As a regional sales director, Defendant Mosher has personally negotiated, and managed other regional sales managers and account representatives in their negotiations of, diesel fuel price discounts in various forms to over-the-road trucking companies for the purpose of inducing those companies to purchase diesel fuel for commercial use from Pilot's numerous travel plazas throughout the United States, instead of purchasing diesel fuel from Pilot's competitors. c. Typically, Pilot's diesel discount deals have involved one of three options: "retail- minus" pricing, "cost-plus" pricing, or a combination of the two known as "better-of' pricing. For its retail-minus discount deals, Pilot has typically agreed to provide the customer with a discount equal to the retail gallon price of diesel minus a negotiated cents. For its cost-plus discount deals, Pilot has typically agreed to provide the customer with a discount price equal to Pilot's "cost" for a gallon of diesel plus a negotiated "it" cents. However, under its cost-plus discount deals, Pilot's actual cost has not been the benchmark used for Pilot's "cost" in cost-plus discount deals. Rather, Pilot's "cost" in its cost-plus discount deals typically has been determined by the Oil Price Information Services' wholesale rack price for a specific OPIS rack or racks tied to the particular Pilot travel plaza where the diesel fuel was purchased. This definition of cost was not always discussed with the customer. For better-of pricing discount deals, the customer has both a retail-minus deal and a cost-plus deal in place for specified Pilot travel plazas, and the customer Defendant's Initialsgk' Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 3 of 17 Page|D 19 receives whichever discount is greater at the time ofeach diesel purchase -- the cost-plus price or the retail-minus price. d. Whether a customer has negotiated a "retail minus '24' cents" discount, a "cost plus cents" discount, or a "better of" pricing discount, the customer could choose, at least through April 2013, to receive its discount generally in two ways - "off-invoice" or by way of a rebate check. Customers who chose to receive their discount "off-invoice" from Pilot generally purchased their diesel from Pilot on credit, and regularly received invoices from Pilot for those purchases. For those customers, their agreed-upon discount should have been applied to determine the periodically invoiced amount. For Pilot customers who chose to receive their discount in the fonn of a rebate, Pilot's retail price for diesel at the point and time of sale was charged to the customer, and then at the end of the month, the customer's negotiated discount was applied to all of the customer's purchased gallons for the month, so that the customer's aggregated price discount for the month was provided in the form of a rebate check. e. What has been complicated for many Pilot customers is that the discount deals offered by Pilot typically vary among Pilot's numerous travel plazas, and the OPIS rack-price benchmark that Pilot uses as its "cost" for "cost-plus" pricing can also vary from travel plaza to travel plaza. There are hundreds of "racks" generating "rack-prices" on a daily basis for hundreds of travel plazas. Put another way, due to the multiple variables at play in the diesel discount deals offered by Pilot to its customers, it can be challenging for customers to track whether they are in fact receiving the full amount of their agreed upon price discount from Pilot. f. From approximately 2008 through approximately April 2013, Defendant Mosher agreed and conspired with other Pilot employees to deceptively withhold discounts from Pilot customers through the deceptive reduction of rebate amounts, and for some customers, by Defendant's Initials Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 4 of 17 Page|D 20 deceptively lowering the off-invoice discounts of customers who were unlikely to notice a deceptively reduced off-invoice discount reduction. g. From approximately 2008 through approximately April 2013, Defendant Mosher deceptively withheld and conspired to deceptively withhold rebate amounts from Pilot customers generally in the following manner. Each month, one of Defendant Mosher's inside regional account representatives, who worked at Pilot headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, and was therefore referred to an "inside" regional account representative, would send a spreadsheet by way of interstate wire transmission, namely an e-mail to Defendant Mosher -- who worked remotely in Bettendorf, Iowa, and made personal sales calls to customers in his sales region outside Tennessee -- that identified the actual rebate amounts that Defendant Mosher's customers should receive pursuant to their discount agreements. Defendant Mosher would then sometimes revise the spreadsheet by inserting the approximate amount, which was less than the actual rebate amount, he wanted the targeted customers deceptively to be sent. Defendant Mosher would then email the revised spreadsheet back to an inside regional account representative in Knoxville, Tennessee, who would further refine Defendant Mosher's approximate, but deceptive, rebate amount into a number that appeared legitimate. Defendant Mosher's inside regional account representative would then fabricate "back-up" data in some instances to support the deceptively reduced rebate amount. Defendant Mosher's inside regional sales representative would then cause rebate checks in the deceptively reduced amounts to be mailed or sent by commercial carrier to the targeted customers. h. For example, on February 14, 201 I, one of Defendant Mosher's inside regional account representative sent him an email with the subject line "Approval Sheet Manual Rebates Jan 2011" to which was attached a spreadsheet that listed numerous Pilot customers, contained a column entitled "Jan-1 1" in which the actual rebate amounts due to the customers were listed, and Defendant's Initials fl Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 5 of 17 Page|D 21 contained a column entitled "Brian," in which the spreadsheet's cells were generally empty. In response to this email, on February 15, 2011, Defendant Mosher emailed back to the same inside regional account representative a revised spreadsheet for "Jan 201 in which the "Brian" column was filled-in with approximate rebate reductions for nearly all of the customers listed on the spreadsheet. i. It was also part of the conspiracy that Defendant Mosher fraudulently reduced negotiated diesel discount prices for some Pilot customers, who received their discounts "off- invoice" without first notifying those customers, so that Defendant Mosher could generate more profit for Pilot and the potential for greater sales commission for himself, while maintaining the false pretense to the targeted Pilot customers that Pilot was in fact providing the targeted customers their agreed-upon discounts through the invoiced amount due to Pilot. j. During an October 25, 2012 business meeting including some of Pilot's senior management and directors, others at the meeting decided that manual rebate practices should be taught to the direct sales personnel at the annual sales training event at Pilot's headquarters planned for November 20 I 2. Defendant Mosher was directed to teach these sessions. k. On November 19 and 20, 2012, Pilot held a mandatory sales-training meeting for the company's diesel direct sales division at its headquarters located at 5503 Lonas Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee. During this training meeting, Defendant Mosher taught four break-out sessions during which, and in furtherance of the conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, he encouraged and taught Pilot direct sales personnel how to reduce the rebates paid to some customers, and thus to defraud, without detection, some of Pilot's customers who chose to receive their discounts in the form of a rebate check. Some of Pilot's senior management attended at least one of Defendant Defendanfs Initials Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 6 of 17 Page|D 22 Mosher's break-out sessions during which he encouraged and taught Pilot direct sales personnel how to engage in the above-described deceptive and fraudulent activity. 1. From 2008 through April 2013, Defendant Mosher, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349, conspired and agreed with other Pilot employees to commit mail fraud, an offense against the United States, in violation of I 8 U.S.C. 1341, that is, for the purpose ofobtaining money from Pilot customers, by means of materially false pretenses, false representations, and omissions, and with the intent to defraud, Defendant Mosher caused and approved the sending of fraudulently reduced rebate checks and fraudulently determined invoice amounts by mail and commercial interstate carriers to certain targeted Pilot customers, and (ii) wire fraud, an offense against the United States in violation of 13 U.S.C. 1343, that is, with the intent to defraud, Defendant Mosher knowingly devised and intended to devise and to participate in a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and omissions, and for the purpose of executing such scheme and artifice, Defendant Mosher caused to be transmitted by means of wire in interstate commerce, writings, signs, and signals, all so that Pilot could fraudulently retain rebates and discounts that were owed and due to certain Pilot customers, and so that Pilot could create and maintain the materially false pretense that those customers were in fact receiving their agreed upon diesel price discount with Pilot for the purpose of inducing those customers to continue their purchasing of diesel fuel from Pilot, rather than a competitor, and for the purpose of increasing both Pilot's profits and its sales personnel's commissions. m. Out of the numerous overt acts that occurred in furtherance of Defendant Mosher's conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud by defrauding Pilot customers, the following are examples: Defendant's Initials i Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 7 of 17 Page|D 23 i. On or about November 13, 2008, Defendant Mosher, knowingly and willfiilly, and with the intent to defraud, caused an interstate wire transmission to be sent, namely the emailing of a spreadsheet by Defendant Mosher from outside Tennessee to a Pilot inside regional account representative, who worked inside Pi|ot's headquarters located in Knoxville, Tennessee, that stated the approximate amount by which to deceptively reduce the listed customer rebate amounts, and further caused deceptively reduced rebate checks for the month of October 2008 to be mailed fi'om Pilot's Knoxville, Tennessee headquarters to many of Pilot's customers located outside Tennessee that were listed on the emailed spreadsheet. ii. On or about February 15, 201 I, Defendant Mosher, knowingly and willfully, and with the intent to defraud, caused an interstate wire transmission to be sent, namely the emailing of a spreadsheet by Defendant Mosher from outside Tennessee to a Pilot inside regional account representative, who worked inside Pilot's headquarters located in Knoxville, Tennessee, that stated the approximate amount by which to deceptively reduce the listed customer rebate amounts, and further caused deceptively reduced rebate checks for the month of January 201 1 to be mailed from Pilot's Knoxville, Tennessee headquarters to many of Pilot's customers located outside Tennessee that were listed on the emailed spreadsheet. On or about November 19 and 20, 2012, Defendant Mosher, as directed by his superiors, knowingly and willfully, and with the intent to defraud, conducted four break-out sessions during Pilot's annual sales training meeting at Pilot headquarters in Knoxville, Tennessee, during which he encouraged and taught Pilot direct sales personnel how to reduce the rebates paid to some customers, and thus to defraud, without detection, some of Pilot's customers who chose to receive their discounts in the form of a rebate check. Defendant's Initials Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 8 of 17 Page|D 24 n. Defendant Mosher agrees that the amount of loss caused by his participation in the conspiracy charged in the information for which he is responsible within the meaning of United States Sentencing Guidelines 2Bl . I is more than seven-million dollars but less than twenty-million dollars Accordingly, Defendant Mosher agrees that United States Sentencing Guidelines 2B1 is a specific offense characteristic that applies to his offense conduct that warrants a 20-level increase to his base offense level. o. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 1 the United States agrees that for sentencing purposes in this case, that the loss amount for which the United States will seek to hold Defendant Mosher responsible under United States Sentencing Guidelines 2B 1.1 is more than seven-million dollars but less than twenty-million dollars p. Defendant Mosher agrees that his participation in the conspiracy charged in the information involved, within the meaning of United States Sentencing Guidelines 2Bl more than fifty (50) victims, but fewer than two-hundred-fifty (250) victims. Accordingly, Defendant Mosher agrees that United States Sentencing Guidelines 2B I is a specific offense characteristic that applies to his offense conduct that warrants a 4-level increase to his base offense level. q. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure I the United States agrees that for sentencing purposes in this case, that the number of victims for which Defendant Mosher should be held responsible under United States Sentencing Guidelines for his participation in the conspiracy is more than fifty (50) victims, but fewer than two-hundred- fifty (250) victims. Defendant's Initials Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 9 of 17 Page|D 25 r. The United States further agrees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)( that Defendant Mosher's participation in the conspiracy did not involve a sophisticated means within the meaning of United States Sentencing Guidelines 2B1 s. The United States further agrees, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure I that the government will not seek an aggravating role adjustment set forth in United States Sentencing Guidelines 3B 1. 1. t. In reaching this agreement, the United States acknowledges that Defendant Mosher admitted his responsibility to government representatives on April 15, 2013 and took immediate steps to assist in the investigation. 4. The defendant understands that by pleading guilty the defendant is giving up several rights, including: a) the right to be indicted by a grand jury for these crimes; b) the right to plead not guilty; c) the right to a speedy and public trial byjury; d) the right to assistance of counsel at trial; e) the right to be presumed innocent and to have the burden of proof placed on the United States to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; f) the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses against the defendant; g) the right to testify on one's own behalf, to present evidence in opposition to the charges and to compel the attendance of witnesses; and h) the right not to testify and to have that choice not used against the defendant. Defendant's Initials 2 10 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 10 of 17 Page|D 26 5. The parties agree that the appropriate disposition of this case would be the following as to each count: a) The Court may impose any lawfiil tenn of imprisonment, any lawful fine, and any lawful term of supervised release up to the statutory maximum; b) The Court will impose special assessment fees as required by law; and c) The Court may order forfeiture as applicable and restitution as appropriate. No promises have been made by any representative of the United States to the defendant as to what the sentence will be in this case. Any estimates or predictions made to the defendant by defense counsel or any other person regarding any potential sentence in this case are not binding on the Court, and may not be used as a basis to rescind this plea agreement or withdraw the defendant's guilty plea. The defendant understands that the sentence in this case will be determined by the Court after it receives the presentence report from the United States Probation Office and any information presented by the parties. The defendant acknowledges that the sentencing determination will be based upon the entire scope of the defendant's criminal conduct, the defendant's criminal history, and pursuant to other factors and guidelines as set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553. 6. The defendant further agrees to cooperate fully, completely, and truthfully with any and all law enforcement agents and personnel of the United States Attorney's Office. This cooperation includes, but is not limited to, meeting with and being interviewed by such law enforcement agents or personnel of the United States Attorney's Office whenever reasonably requested. The defendant further agrees not to protect anyone who was truly involved and not to falsely implicate anyone who was not truly involved in the commission of criminal offenses. The defendant further agrees to testify completely and truthfully before a federal grand jury, at Defendant Initials 11 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 11 of 17 Page|D 27 any trial, or at any other proceeding if called upon by the United States to do so. Upon request by the United States, the defendant must furnish all documents, objects and other evidence in the defendant's possession, custody, or control that are relevant to the United States' inquiries. The defendant and defense counsel also knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally waive the defendant's right (where applicable) to have defense counsel present during the course of cooperation, including questioning or court appearances. To ensure the defendant's truthful cooperation, the United States agrees, except as provided below, not to use any self-incriminating information provided by the defendant pursuant to this written plea agreement against the defendant. However, nothing in this plea agreement shall restrict the use of any information (1) known to the United States prior to entering into this written plea agreement, (2) obtained from any other source, or (3) concerning the defendant's prior criminal record. Should any of the following occur (1) the defendant provides false or misleading information during the course of the defendant's cooperation, (2) the defendant moves to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea, or (3) the defendant breaches any other of the terms of this plea agreement, then the United States may make use of any information provided by the defendant to law enforcement authorities at any time (including any information provided during formal or informal proffer sessions prior to signing this plea agreement, and any information provided after signing this plea agreement) for any purpose in any subsequent proceeding, including grand jury, trial, and sentencing phases of this case or in any other prosecutions or proceedings against the defendant or others. Moreover, if the United States determines at any time (before or after sentencing) that the defendant has failed to cooperate fully, completely, and truthfully, or otherwise violated any of the terms of this plea agreement, it Defendant's Initials 12 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 12 of 17 Page|D 28 will be free to withdraw any favorable sentencing motion filed by the United States, including motions filed under U.S.S.G. .1 andfor 18 U.S.C. 3553. 8. At the time of sentencing, the United States may bring to the Court's attention the nature, extent, and value of the defendant's cooperation so that it may be considered in determining a fair and appropriate sentence under the facts of the case. 9. Given the defendant's agreement to plead guilty, the United States will not oppose a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under the provisions of Section 3El of the Sentencing Guidelines. Further, if the defendant's offense level is 16 or greater, and the defendant is awarded the two-level reduction pursuant to Section 3El the United States agrees to move, at or before the time of sentencing, the Court to decrease the offense level by one additional level pursuant to Section 3E1.l(b) of the Sentencing Guidelines. Should the defendant engage in any conduct or make any statements that are inconsistent with accepting responsibility for the defendant's offense, including violations of conditions of release or the commission of additional offenses prior to sentencing, the United States will be free not to make such motion or to withdraw such motion if already made, and will be free to recommend to the Court that the defendant not receive any offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under Section 3E .l of the Sentencing Guidelines. 10. The defendant agrees to pay the special assessment in this case prior to sentencing. 1 I. The defendant agrees that the court shall order restitution, pursuant to any applicable provision of law, for any loss caused to the victims of the conspiracy offense charged in this case who were victimized by Defendant Mosher's participation in the charged conspiracy, and any such restitution order shall impose joint and several liability as the court deems appropriate. As required by law, Defendant Mosher's restitution obligation under 18 U.S.C. Defendant's Initials 13 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 13 of 17 Page|D 29 3663A is not limited by Paragraphs or The United States agrees that in fashioning an appropriate restitution order in this case, the Court should consider the disposition of any civil claims against Pilot related to the offense charged in the information. 12. Financial Obligations. The defendant agrees to pay all fines and restitution imposed by the Court to the Clerk of Court. The defendant also agrees that the full fine andfor restitution amounts shall be considered due and payable immediately. if the defendant cannot pay the full amount immediately and is placed in custody or under the supervision of the Probation Office at any time, the defendant agrees that the Bureau of Prisons and the Probation Office will have the authority to establish payment schedules to ensure payment of the fine andfor restitution. The defendant further agrees to cooperate fully in efforts to collect any financial obligation imposed by the Court by set-off of federal payments, execution on non- exempt property, and any other means the United States deems appropriate. The defendant and counsel also agree that the defendant may be contacted post-judgment regarding the collection of any financial obligation imposed by the Court without notifying the defendant's counsel and outside the presence of the defendant's counsel. ln order to facilitate the collection of financial obligations to be imposed with this prosecution, the defendant agrees to disclose fully all assets in which the defendant has any interest or over which the defendant exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those held by a spouse, nominee, or other third party. In furtherance of this agreement, the defendant additionally agrees to the following specific terms and conditions: a) If so requested by the United States, the defendant will submit a completed financial statement to the U.S. Attorney's Office, in a form it provides and as it Defendanfs Initials 14 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 14 of 17 Page|D 30 directs. The defendant promises that such financial statement and disclosures will be complete, accurate, and truthful. b) The defendant expressly authorizes the U.S. Attorney's Office to obtain a credit report on the defendant in order to evaluate the defendant's ability to satisfy any financial obligation imposed by the Court. c) If so requested by the United States, the defendant will execute authorizations on forms provided by the U.S. Attorney's office to permit the U.S. Attorney's Office to obtain financial and tax records of the defendant. 13. In consideration of the concessions made by the United States in this agreement and as a further demonstration of the defendant's acceptance of responsibility for the offense committed, the defendant agrees not to file a direct appeal of the defendant's conviction or sentence except the defendant retains the right to appeal a sentence imposed above the sentencing guideline range or any applicable mandatory minimum sentence (whichever is greater) detennined by the district court. In addition, the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any motions or pleadings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255 or to collaterally attack the defendant's conviction andfor resulting sentence. The parties agree that the defendant retains the right to raise, by way of collateral review under 2255, claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or prosecutorial misconduct not known to the defendant by the time of the entry of judgment. 14. This agreement becomes effective once it is signed by the parties and is not contingent on the defendant's entry of a guilty plea. If the United States violates the terms of this agreement, the defendant will have the right to withdraw from this agreement. If the defendant violates the terms of this agreement in any way (including but not limited to failing to enter Defendant's Initials 9- 15 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 15 of 17 Page|D 31 guilty plea as agreed herein, moving to withdraw the guilty plea after entry, or by violating any court order or any local, state or federal law pending the resolution of this case), then the United States will have the right to void any or all parts of the agreement and may also enforce whatever parts of the agreement it chooses. In addition, the United States may prosecute the defendant for any and all federal crimes that the defendant committed related to this case, including any charges that were dismissed and any other charges which the United States agreed not to pursue. The defendant expressly waives any statute of limitations defense and any constitutional or statutory speedy trial or doublejeopardy defense to such a prosecution. The defendant also understands that a violation of this plea agreement by the defendant does not entitle the defendant to withdraw the defendant's guilty plea in this case. AGREEMENT CONTINUES ON NEXT Defendant's Initials%j"/ 16 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 16 of 17 Page|D 32 15. This plea agreement constitutes the full and complete agreement and understanding between the parties concerning the defendant's guilty plea to the aboye--referenced charge, and there are no other agreements, promises, undertakings, or understandings between the defendant and the United States. The parties understand and agree that the tenns of this plea agreement can be modified only in writing signed by all of the parties and that any and all other promises, representations, and statements whether made before, contemporaneous with, or after this agreement, are null and void. WILLIAM C. KILLIAN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 3 By: Date /Zia:-r Francis M. Hamiiton Ill 97 David P. Lewen, Jr. Assistant United States Att meys 9" Date Bfian Mosher Defendant 20:3 )4 Date Steven M. Kowal Lauren N. Norris Attorneys for the Defendant Defendant's Initials 17 Case Document 7 Filed 12/20/13 Page 17 of 17 Page|D 33