Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Case No. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, l. ALFRED OKWERA OLANGO, Defendant. PLEA AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF FACTS RELEVANT TO SENTENCING The United States of America, by and through Peter H. Walsh, Assistant United States Attorney, and defendant Alfred Okwera Olango (?the defendant?), personally and by counsel, Edward A. Pluss, submit the following Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing pursuant to 11.1 and Fed. R. Crim. P. I. PLEA AGREEMENT The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment charging a violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), felon in possession of a firearm. In exchange for the defendant?s plea of guilty to Count 1 Of the Indictment, the Government agrees to recommend a sentence at the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range and, in the event the defendant?s adjusted base offense level exceeds 15, to move for a 3 point downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to p?s Email-Bayonne, II. J. Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 7 The parties understand that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The court is required to consider the guideline ranges, but is permitted to sentence in light of other statutory criteria as well. Id; see also 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The defendant understands and acknowledges, however, that these recommendations are not binding on the court, that sentencing is in the sole discretion of the court, and that the court may sentence the defendant up to the statutory maximum regardless of the parties? recommendations. The parties? estimated advisory guideline calculation is set forth in Section IV of this agreement. II. STATUTORY PENALTIES The maximum statutory penalty for violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) is: not more than 10 years imprisonment, not more than a $250,000 ?ne, or both; not more than 3 years supervised release; and a $100 special assessment fee. The conviction may cause the loss of civil rights, including but not limited to the rights to possess ?rearms, vote, hold elected of?ce, and sit on a jury. A violation of the conditions of probation or supervised release may result in a separate prison sentence. 0F FACTUAL BASIS AND FACTS RELEVANT TO SENTENCING The parties agree that there is no diSpute as to the material elements which establish a factual basis of the offense of conviction and which are relevant to sentencing. Pertinent facts are set out below in order to provide a factual basis of the plea and to provide facts which the parties believe are relevant, pursuant to 1B1.3, for computing the appropriate guideline range. To the extent that the parties disagree about the facts relevant to 2 Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 7 sentencing, the statement of facts identi?es which facts are known to be in dispute at the time of the plea. The statement of facts herein does not preclude either party from presenting and arguing, for sentencing purposes, additional facts or factors not included herein which are relevant to the guideline computation 1B1.3) or to sentencing in general 1B1.4). In ?determining the factual basis for the sentence, the court will consider the stipulation [of the parties], together with the results of the presentence I investigation, and any other relevant information.? 6B1.4 Comm). The parties agree that the Government?s evidence would show that the date on which conduct relevant to the offense 1B1.3) began is December 31, 2005. The parties agree that the Government?s evidence would be: On or about December 31, 2005, the defendant was pulled over for a traffic stop while driving a 1990 Chevrolet Caprice in Aurora, Colorado. The Chevrolet Caprice was registered to the defendant and the defendant was the only person in the car. When police officers approached the vehicle, they noticed a FEG, model PA-63, 9mm semi-automatic pistol bearing serial number on the ?oor by the defendant?s feet. The defendant knew the gun was in his car and the defendant knowingly had the gun in his possession. The defendant had previously been convicted: in 1999 in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, case number SCD140447, of Receiving Stolen Property; and (2) in 2001 in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, case number SCD145075 of Sale of Controlled Substances, both of which crimes were felonies punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 7 The FEG, model PA-63, 9mm pistol bearing serial number AKS 190 recovered from the defendant?s car was not manufactured in the state of Colorado and, therefore, crossed state lines and traveled in and affected interstate commerce. ATF Special Agent Doug Lambert test ?red the pistol and determined that it functioned as designed by expelling a projectile by the use of an explosive IV. SENTENCING COMPUTATION The parties understand that in sentencing the defendant, the court will consider the advisory sentencing guidelines, issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(a), as well as the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). To the extent that the court must consider the guidelines, the parties set forth below their estimate of the applicable advisory guideline range. Any estimation by the parties regarding the estimated appropriate guideline application does not preclude either party from asking the court to depart from the otherwise appropriate guideline range at sentencing, if that party believes that there exists an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into consideration by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the sentencing guidelines. 5K2.0). To the extent the parties disagree about the sentencing factors, the computations below identify the factors which are in dispute. A. The base guideline for Count 1 is The Government contends that the defendant begins with a base offense level of 20, pursuant to because the instant offense was committed subsequent to sustaining a felony conviction for a :fcontrolled substance offense.? The defendant contends that he begins with a base Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 7 offense level of 14, pursuant to because he has not been convicted of a ?controlled substance offense.? B. There are no applicable speci?c offense characteristics. C. There are no victims-related, role in the offense, or multiple count adjustments. D. The adjusted offense level would therefore be either 20 if the defendant?s prior conviction constitutes a ?controlled substance offense,? or 14, if it does not. B. The defendant should receive the 2 point downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. In the event that the Court determines that the defendant has an adjusted offense level of 20, the defendant should receive an additional 1 point downward adjustment, bringing the total downward adjustment to 3, pursuant to The resulting offense level would therefore be either 12 or 17. F. The parties understand the defendant?s criminal history computation is tentative. The criminal history category is determined by the court. The parties are unable to determine the defendant?s criminal history with certainty at this time but, based on facts currently known to the parties, the parties estimate that the defendant?s criminal history category is either a II or a G. Assuming the (tentative) criminal history facts of F, above, the career offender/ criminal livelihoodz?arrned career criminal adjustments would not apply. H. The guideline range resulting from the estimated offense level above, and the (tentative) criminal history category of F, above, is as follows. If the defendant is found to have been convicted of a ?controlled substance offense,? the range is 27-33 months if he is a criminal history category 11, and 30-37 if he is a criminal history category Hi. If Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 7 the defendant has not been convicted of a ?controlled substance offense,? the range is 12- 18 months if he is a criminal history category 11, and 15-21 months. if he is a criminal history category However, in order to be as accurate as possible, with the criminal history category undetermined at this time, the estimated offense levels of E, above, could conceivably result in a range from 10-16 months (bottom of Category I, offense level 12), to 51?63 months (top of Category VI, offense level 17). The sentence would be limited, in any case, by the statutory maximum. I. Pursuant to guideline 5131.2, assuming the estimated offense level of E, above, the ?ne range for this offense would be $3,000 to $30,000, plus applicable interest and penalties, if the defendant has an adjusted offense level of 12, or $5,000 to $50,000, plus applicable interest and penalties, if the defendant has an adjusted offense level of 17. J. Pursuant to guideline 5D1.2, if the court imposes the term of supervised release, that term shall be at least 2 years but not more than 3 years. WHY THE PROPOSED PLEA DISPOSITION IS APPROPRIATE The parties believe the sentencing range resulting from the proposed plea agreement is appropriate because all relevant conduct is disclosed, the sentencing guidelines take into account all pertinent sentencing factors with respect to this defendant, and the charges to which the defendant has agreed to plead guilty adequately re?ect the seriousness of the actual offense behavior. This document states the parties? entire agreement. There are no other promises, agreements (or ?side agreements?), terms, conditions, understandings, or assurances, express or Case Document 18 Filed 07/27/06 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 7 implied. In entering this agreement, neither the Government nor the defendant has relied, or is relying, on any terms, promises, conditions, or assurances not expressly stated in this agreement. Date: 4/10/06 ?b I Al?ed 0kwerab1ango Defendant Date: I Edward A. Pltiss Attorney for Defendant Date: 7/1'l/0 Petermsh/ Assistant US. Attorney