Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHEIW DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. THOMAS DODD PLEA AGREEMENT The United States of America, by and through Raymond N. Hulser, Chief of the Public Integrity Section, United States Department of Justice, Robert J. Heberle and Ryan J. Ellersick, Trial Attorneys for the Public Integrity Section, Abe Martinez, Acting United States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas, and Melissa Annis, Assistant United States Attorney, and the defendant, Thomas Dodd (?Defendant?), and Defendant?s counsel, pursuant to Rule of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, state that they have entered into an agreement, the terms and conditions of which are as follows: Defendant?s Agreement 1. Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts One and Two of the Indictment. Count one charges Defendant with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, in Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349, 1341, and 1343. Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 2 of 27 Count Two charges Defendant with conspiracy to make conduit contributions and false statements to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 1001, and Title 52, United States Code, Sections 30122 and 30109. Defendant, by entering this plea, agrees that he is waiving any right to have the facts that the law makes essential to the punishment either charged in the indictment, or proved to a jury or proven beyond a reasonable doubt Punishment Range 2. The statutogg maximum penalty for each Violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349 is imprisonment of not more than 20 years and a ?ne of not more than $250,000.00. The statutog maximum penalty for each violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, is imprisonment of not more than 5 years and a fine of not more than $250,000. Additionally, Defendant may receive a term of supervised release after imprisonment of up to 3 years after a conviction under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 371. See Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3559(a)(3) and 3583(b)(2). Defendant acknowledges and understands that if he should Violate the conditions of any period of supervised release which may be imposed as part of his sentence, then Defendant may be Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 3 of 27 imprisoned for the entire term of supervised release, Without credit for time already served on the term of supervised release prior to such violation. See Title 18, United Stated Code, sections 3559(a)(3) and 3583(e)(3). Defendant understands that he cannot have the imposition or execution of the sentence suspended, nor is he eligible for parole. Mandatory Special Assessment 3. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, section 3013(a)(2)(A), immediately after sentencing, Defendant will pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court a special assessment in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per count of conviction for a total payment of $200.00. The payment will be by cashier?s check or money order, payable to the Clerk of the United States District Court, c/o District Clerk?s Of?ce, PO. Box 61010, Houston, Texas 77208, Attention: Finance. Cooperation 4. The parties understand this Agreement carries the potential for a motion for departure under 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands and agrees that whether such a motion is ?led will be determined solely by the United States through the Chief of the Public Integrity Section and the United Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 4 of 27 States Attorney for the Southern District of Texas. Should Defendant?s cooperation, in the sole judgment and discretion of the United States, amount to ?substantial assistance,? the United States reserves the sole right to file a motion for departure pursuant to 5K1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant further agrees to persist in that plea through sentencing, fully cooperate with the United States, and not oppose the forfeiture of assets contemplated in paragraphs 21-25 of this agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that the United States will request that sentencing be deferred until that cooperation is complete. 5. Defendant understands and agrees that ?fully cooperate,? as that term is used herein, includes providing all truthful information relating to any criminal activity known to Defendant, including, but not limited to, mail and wire fraud, violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, false statements to the FEC, and money laundering. Defendant understands that such information includes both state and federal offenses arising therefrom. In that regard: Defendant agrees that, for purposes of determining Defendant?s guideline range at the time of sentencing, the applicable base offense level under section 2B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines is 7. Defendant also agrees that a 2-level enhancement applies under section because the offense involved a misrepresentation that Defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable or educational organization; Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 5 of 27 Defendant agrees that this Plea Agreement binds only the Public Integrity Section and the United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of Texas and Defendant, and that it does not bind any other United States Attorney?s office or other component or section of the Department of Justice; (0) Defendant agrees to testify truthfully as a witness before a grand jury or in any other judicial or administrative proceeding when called upon to do so by the United States. Defendant further agrees to waive his Fifth Amendment privilege against self- incrimination for the purpose of this Agreement; Defendant agrees to voluntarily attend any interviews and conferences as the United States may request; Defendant agrees to provide truthful, complete, and accurate information and testimony and understands any false statements made by Defendant to the grand jury or at any court proceeding (criminal or civil), or to a government agent or attorney, can and will be prosecuted under the appropriate perjury, false statement, or obstruction statutes; Defendant agrees to provide to the United States all documents in his possession or under his control relating to all areas of inquiry and investigation; and Should any recommended departure not meet Defendant?s expectations, Defendant understands he remains bound by the terms of this Agreement and that he cannot, for that reason alone, withdraw his plea. Waiver of Appeal and Collateral Review 6. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code, section 1291, and Title 18, United States Code, section 3742, afford a defendant the right to appeal the Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 6 of 27 conviction and sentence imposed. Defendant is also aware that Title 28, United States Code, section 2255, affords the right to contest or ?collaterally attack? a conviction or sentence after the judgment of conviction and sentence has become ?nal. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to appeal or ?collaterally attack? the conviction and sentence, except that Defendant does not waive the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, if otherwise permitted, or on collateral review in a motion under Title 28, United States Code, section 2255. In the event Defendant ?les a notice of appeal following the imposition of the sentence or later collaterally attacks his conviction or sentence, the United States will assert its rights under this agreement and seek speci?c performance of these waivers. 7. In agreeing to these waivers, Defendant is aware that a sentence has not yet been determined by the Court. Defendant is also aware that any estimate of the possible sentencing range under the sentencing guidelines that he may have received from his counsel, the United States or the Probation Of?ce, is a prediction and not a promise, did not induce his guilty plea, and is not binding on the United States, the Probation Of?ce or the Court. The United States does not make any promise or representation concerning what sentence the defendant will receive. Defendant further understands and agrees that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are 6 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 7 of 27 ?effectively advisory? to the Court. See United States v. Booker, 543 US. 220 (2005). Accordingly, Defendant understands that, although the Court must consult the Sentencing Guidelines and must take them into account when sentencing Defendant, the Court is not bound to follow the Sentencing Guidelines nor sentence Defendant within the calculated guideline range. 8. Defendant understands and agrees that each and all waivers contained in the Agreement as well as the agreement to cooperate are made in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in this plea agreement. The United States? Agreements 9. The United States agrees to each of the following: At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees to recommend that, for purposes of determining Defendant?s guideline range, the applicable loss amount under section 2B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines based on Defendant?s relevant conduct is not more than $550,000. Defendant understands that this agreement is based upon the United States? current understanding that the total loss amount attributable to the defendant under section 2B 1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines did not in fact exceed $550,000. Defendant understands that the United States reserves the right to recommend a loss amount higher than $550,000 in the event that additional evidence establishes, in the sole discretion of the United States, that the loss attributable to Defendant within the meaning of section 2B1.l of the Sentencing Guidelines exceeds $550,000. At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees not to oppose Defendant?s anticipated request to the Court and the United 7 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 8 of 27 States Probation Of?ce that he receive a two (2) level downward adjustment pursuant to section 3E1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, should Defendant accept responsibility as contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines; If Defendant quali?es for an adjustment under section 3E1.1(a) of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and the Defendant?s offense level is 16 or greater, the United States agrees not to oppose Defendant?s request for an additional one-level departure based on the timeliness of the plea or the expeditious manner in which Defendant provided complete information regarding his role in the offense. Agreement Binding Public Integrity Section and Southern District of Texas 10. The United States agrees that it will not ?lrther criminally prosecute Defendant in the Southern District of Texas for offenses arising from conduct charged in the Indictment which are known to the United States at the time of the execution of this plea agreement. This plea agreement binds only the Public Integrity Section and United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of Texas and Defendant. It does not bind any other United States Attorney?s of?ce or other component or section of the Department of Justice. The Public Integrity Section and United States Attorney?s Of?ce for the Southern District of Texas will bring this plea agreement and the full extent of Defendant?s cooperation to the attention of other prosecuting of?ces, if requested. Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 9 of 27 United States? Non-Waiver of Appeal 11. The United States reserves the right to carry out its responsibilities under guidelines sentencing. Speci?cally, the United States reserves the right: to bring its version of the facts of this case, including its evidence ?le and any investigative ?les, to the attention of the Probation Of?ce in connection with that of?ce?s preparation of a presentence report; to set forth or dispute sentencing factors or facts material to sentencing; to seek resolution of such factors or facts in conference with Defendant?s counsel and the Probation Of?ce; to ?le a pleading relating to these issues, in accordance with section 6A1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and Title 18, United States Code, section 3553(a); and to appeal the sentence imposed or the manner in which it was determined. Sentence Determination 12. Defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed after consideration of the United States Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements, which are only advisory, as well as the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). Defendant nonetheless acknowledges and agrees that the Court has authority to impose any sentence up to and including the statutory maximum set for the offenses to which Defendant pleads guilty, and that the sentence to be imposed is within the 9 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 10 of 27 sole discretion of the sentencing judge after the Court has consulted the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands and agrees that the parties? positions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines do not bind the Court and that the sentence imposed is within the discretion of the sentencing judge. If the Court should impose any sentence up to the maximum established by statute, or should the Court order any or all of the sentences imposed to run consecutively, Defendant cannot, for that reason alone, withdraw a guilty plea, and will remain bound to ful?ll all of the obligations under this plea agreement. Rights at Trial 13. Defendant understands that by entering into this agreement, he surrenders certain rights as provided in this plea agreement. Defendant understands that the rights of a defendant include the following: If Defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to the charges, defendant would have the right to a speedy jury trial with the assistance of counsel. The trial may be conducted by a judge sitting without a jury if Defendant, the United States, and the court all agree; At a trial, the United States would be required to present witnesses and other evidence against Defendant. Defendant would have the opportunity to confront those witnesses and his attorney would be allowed to cross-examine them. In turn, Defendant could, but would not be required to, present witnesses and other evidence on his own behalf. If the witnesses for 10 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 11 of 27 Defendant would not appear voluntarily, he could require their attendance through the subpoena power of the court; and At a trial, Defendant could rely on a privilege against self- incrimination and decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn from such refusal to testify. However, if Defendant desired to do so, he could testify on his own behalf. Factual Basis for Guilty Plea 14. Defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges contained in Counts One and Two of the Indictment. If this case were to proceed to trial, the United States could prove each element of the offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendant agrees that the following statement of facts fairly and accurately describes Defendant?s actions and involvement in the offenses to which he is pleading guilty. Defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and truthfully admits the facts set forth in this Plea Agreement. Relevant Conduct in 2010 In 2010, Defendant and Co?conspirator A solicited Person A for charitable donations to Organization A. Defendant and Co-conspirator A informed Person A that Organization A was a nonpro?t charitable and educational organization that had been approved to receive tax-deductible charitable donations pursuant to Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In soliciting Person A for donations to Organization A, Defendant and Co?conspirator A represented to Person A that the 11 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 12 of 27 money would be used for legitimate charitable and educational causes consistent with Organization A?s status as a nonpro?t charitable and educational entity. Speci?cally, Defendant and Co-conspirator A represented to Person A that the donations would be used to fund legitimate voter education activities in speci?c jurisdictions in advance of the November 2010 federal elections. As a result of these solicitations, Person A made $285,000 in charitable donations to Organization A in four installments: $25,000 in May 2010, $100,000 in July 2010, $100,000 in September 2010, and $60,000 in October 2010. The $285,000 in charitable donations was deposited into bank accounts controlled by Co- conspirator A. Instead of using Person A?s contributions to fund legitimate voter education activity in the manner speci?ed by Person A, Defendant and Co-conspirator A diverted a large portion of the charitable donations from Person A to pay for their own personal expenses. Of the $285,000 in donations from Person A in 2010, Defendant received approximately $96,000. At Defendant?s direction, Co- conspirator A paid approximately $50,000 of the $96,000 directly toward Defendant?s credit card for purported expense reimbursements, even though Defendant was aware that he had incurred far less than $50,000 in expenses in connection with his solicitations to Person A. Instead, Defendant used the $50,000 12 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 13 of 27 to pay down Defendant?s credit card debt for personal and other expenditures unrelated to voter education. Although Defendant worked closely with Co-conspirator A in 2010, Defendant never assisted Co-conspirator A with voter education activities in the jurisdictions identi?ed by Person A nor did he ever observe Co-conspirator A engaging in any voter education activities in those jurisdictions. At Co-conspirator A?s direction, however, Defendant repeatedly represented to Person A that Person A?s charitable donations had been and would continue to be used to fund the legitimate voter education activities speci?ed by Person A. Conspiracy to Commit Mail and Wire Fraud In late 2011, Co-conspirator A began making preparations to seek a political party?s nomination for election to the United States House of Representatives. In December 2011, Co-conspirator A and Defendant personally visited Person A in order to seek funding for the campaign. At the meeting, Co-conspirator A asked Person A for a large loan to be used to fund Co-conspirator A?s campaign. Person A denied Co-conspirator A?s request for a campaign loan, explaining that he could donate only to legitimate nonprofit charitable organizations. Person A made clear that he was unwilling to provide any funds to Co?conspirator A?s congressional 13 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 14 of 27 campaign, which did not qualify as a nonpro?t charitable organization within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. In or about December 2011, Defendant and Co?conspirator A solicited Person A for a charitable donation to Organization A, to be used to fund legitimate voter education activities in Co-conspirator A?s congressional district in advance of the 2012 federal primary and general elections. Relying on these representations, Person A donated $25,000 to Organization A on or about December 30, 2011. C0- conspirator A gave Defendant $5,000 of this $25,000 donation. Following this donation, Co-conspirator A informed Defendant that Co-conspirator A intended to divert Person A?s charitable donation to pay for Co-conspirator A?s congressional campaign expenses, in violation of Co-conspirator A?s and Defendant?s representations to Person A that the funds provided would be used only for charitable and educational purposes. Even though Defendant knew that any additional charitable donations by Person A would be improperly diverted to pay for Co-conspirator A?s congressional campaign expenses, Defendant agreed to continue assisting Co-conspirator A in soliciting Person A for additional charitable donations. In furtherance of their agreement, between in or around January 2012 and in or around July 2012, Defendant and Co-conspirator A made a series of solicitations to Person A asking l4 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 15 of 27 for donations to Organization B, another entity that Co-conspirator A purportedly controlled, which had quali?ed as a nonpro?t organization within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3). In soliciting Person A for donations to Organization B, Defendant and Co-conspirator A represented to Person A that the money would be used for legitimate charitable and educational causes consistent with Organization B?s status as a nonpro?t charitable and educational entity. Speci?cally, Defendant and Co-conspirator A represented to Person A that the donations would be used to fund legitimate voter education activities in Co-conspirator A?s congressional district in advance of the November 2012 federal primary and general elections. At the time of these solicitations, Defendant knew that the money obtained from Person A was not going to be used for legitimate charitable or educational activity, but would instead be improperly diverted to pay for Co-conspirator A?s congressional campaign expenses. Defendant nonetheless assisted Co-conspirator A in making these representations and did so with the intent to deceive Person A and induce him to make charitable donations under false pretenses. As a result of Co-conspirator A and Defendant falsely representing to Person A that his money would be used for legitimate charitable and educational activity, rather than campaign expenditures, Person A donated $140,000 to Organization in three installments: $25,000 in February 2012, $15,000 in April 2012, and 15 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 16 of 27 $100,000 in July 2012. The $25,000 and $15,000 checks were sent via FedEx from Maryland to Friendswood, Texas. The $100,000 donation was sent via interstate wire from a bank account based in Maryland and controlled by Person A to a bank account based in Friendswood, Texas, and controlled by Co-conspirator A. Contrary to the representations made to Person A, Co-conspirator A then caused a substantial portion of the $140,000 to be improperly diverted to Co-conspirator A?s congressional campaign and used for campaign expenses. Conspiracy to Violate Federal Election Laws In November 2012, Co?conspirator A won election to the United States House of Representatives. In January 2013, Co-conspirator A was sworn into of?ce, and Defendant joined Co?conspirator A?s congressional staff. On or about January 24, 2013, Defendant and Co-conspirator A solicited Person for funding to renovate a townhouse near the United States Capitol to serve as a place for congressional interns to congregate. Person ran a charitable foundation that contributed funds to qualifying Section 501(c)(3) nonpro?t organizations. Defendant and Co-conspirator A represented to Person that the project, which they called the Freedom House, would be funded through Organization and that Person B?s donation to the project would therefore be a charitable donation to a qualifying Section 501(c)(3) nonpro?t entity. Person 16 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 17 of 27 agreed to make a charitable donation to the Freedom House project and caused a check to be issued on or about January 24, 2013, for $350,000 from his charitable foundation to Organization B. Around this time, Co-conspirator A, Defendant, and Co-conspirator B, another employee in Co-conspirator A?s congressional of?ce, secretly agreed to divert a portion of the charitable funds provided by Person into one of Co- conspirator A?s campaign bank accounts to pay off campaign debts. In furtherance of their agreement, on or about February 10, 2013, Co-conspirator A used the charitable funds provided by Person to cause the issuance of a check to Defendant in the amount of $12,000. Also on or about February 10, 2013, Co-conspirator A used the charitable funds provided by Person to cause the issuance of a check to Co-conspirator in the amount of $12,500. Using these diverted charitable funds, on or about February 11, 2013, Defendant wrote three $2,500 checks to Co-conspirator A?s campaign, and Co- conspirator wrote three $2,500 checks to Co-conspirator A?s campaign, for a total contribution of $7,500 each. Defendant, Co-conspirator A, and Co-conspirator caused these checks to be deposited into one of Co-conspirator A?s campaign bank accounts on or about February 12, 2013. At that time, $7,500 was the maximum allowable individual contribution under federal law. 17 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 18 of 27 To conceal the fact that Co-conspirator A had funneled money from Organization into his congressional campaign account, Co-conspirator A, Defendant, and Co-conspirator agreed to falsely report to the FEC that these contributions were made by Defendant?s mother and Co-conspirator B?s father. On or about April 15, 2013, Defendant and his co-conspirators caused the submission of a report to the FEC that falsely stated that Defendant?s mother and Co-conspirator B?s father each made $7,500 in contributions. On or about October 16, 2013, Defendant and his co-conspirators caused the submission of an amended report to the FEC that falsely stated that Defendant and Co?conspirator made the contributions that were initially attributed to their parents. This false report was submitted via interstate wire transmission from the Southern District of Texas to Washington, DC. The preceding statement of facts is a summary, made for the purpose of providing the court with a factual basis for Defendant?s guilty plea. It does not include all of the facts known to Defendant concerning criminal activity in which he and others engaged, nor does it contain all the facts that the United States could prove in a trial against Defendant or any of his co-conspirators. 18 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 19 of 27 Breach of Plea Agreement 15. If Defendant should fail in any way to ful?ll completely all of the obligations under this plea agreement, the United States will be released from its obligations under the plea agreement, and Defendant?s plea and sentence will stand. If at any time Defendant retains, conceals, or disposes of assets in violation of this plea agreement, or if Defendant knowingly withholds evidence or is otherwise not completely truthful with the United States, then the United States may move the Court to set aside the guilty plea and reinstate prosecution. Any information and documents that have been disclosed by Defendant, whether prior to or subsequent to this plea agreement, and all leads derived therefrom, will be used against defendant in any prosecution. Restitution, Forfeiture, and Fines Generally 16. This Plea Agreement is being entered into by the United States on the basis of Defendant?s express representation that he will make a full and complete disclosure of all assets over which he exercises direct or indirect control, or in which he has any ?nancial interest. Defendant agrees not to dispose of any assets or take any action that would effect a transfer of property in which he has an interest, unless Defendant obtains the prior written permission of the United States. 19 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 20 of 27 17. Defendant agrees to make complete ?nancial disclosure by truthfully executing a sworn ?nancial statement (Form OBD-SOO or similar form) within 7 days of signing this plea agreement. Defendant agrees to authorize the release of all ?nancial information requested by the United States, including, but not limited to, executing authorization forms permitting the United States to obtain tax information, bank account records, credit histories, and social security information. Defendant agrees to discuss and answer any questions by the United States relating to Defendant?s complete ?nancial disclosure. 18. Defendant agrees to take all steps necessary to pass clear title to forfeitable assets to the United States and to assist fully in the collection of restitution and ?nes, including, but not limited to, surrendering title, executing a warranty deed, signing a consent decree, stipulating to facts regarding the transfer of title and the basis for the forfeiture, and signing any other documents necessary to effectuate such transfer. Defendant also agrees to direct any banks which have custody of his assets to deliver all funds and records of such assets to the United States. 19. Defendant understands that forfeiture, restitution, and ?nes are separate components of sentencing and are separate obligations. 20 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 21 of 27 Restitution 20. Defendant agrees to pay full restitution to the Victim(s) regardless of the count(s) of conviction. Defendant understands and agrees that the Court will determine the amount of restitution to fully compensate the Victim(s). Defendant agrees that restitution imposed by the Court will be due and payable immediately and that Defendant will not attempt to avoid or delay payment. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 above, Defendant waives the right to challenge in any manner, including by direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding, the restitution order imposed by the Court. Forfeiture 21. Defendant stipulates and agrees that the property listed in the Indictment?s Notice of Forfeiture (and in any supplemental Notices) is subject to forfeiture, and Defendant agrees to the forfeiture of that property. 22. Defendant stipulates and agrees that the factual basis for his guilty plea supports the forfeiture against him and in favor of the United States, and Defendant agrees to the imposition of a personal money judgment against him and in favor of the United States of America as noticed in the Indictment. The parties agree that, at or before sentencing, the Court should determine the exact amount of the money judgment to be imposed. Defendant stipulates and admits that one or more of the 21 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 22 of 27 conditions set forth in Title 21, United States Code, section 853(p), exists. Defendant agrees to forfeit any of his property, or his interest in property, up to the value of any unpaid portion of the money judgment, until the money judgment is fully satis?ed. 23. Defendant agrees to waive any and all interest in any asset which is the subject of a related administrative or judicial forfeiture proceeding, whether criminal or civil, federal or state. 24. Defendant consents to the order of forfeiture becoming ?nal as to Defendant immediately following this guilty plea, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 25. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 6 above, Defendant waives the right to challenge the forfeiture of property in any manner, including by direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding. Fines 26. Defendant understands that under the Sentencing Guidelines the Court is permitted to order Defendant to pay a ?ne that is suf?cient to reimburse the government for the costs of any imprisonment or term of supervised release, if any. Defendant agrees that any ?ne imposed by the Court will be due and payable immediately, and Defendant will not attempt to avoid or delay payment. Subject to 22 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 23 of 27 the provisions of paragraph 6 above, Defendant waives the right to challenge the ?ne in any manner, including by direct appeal or in a collateral proceeding. Waiver of Venue 27. Defendant waives any challenge to venue in the Southern District of Texas. 23 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 24 of 27 Complete Agreement 29. This written plea agreement, consisting of 27 pages, including the attached addendum of Defendant and his attorney, constitutes the complete plea agreement between the United States, Defendant, and Defendant?s counsel. No promises or representations have been made by the United States except as set forth in writing in this plea agreement. Defendant acknowledges that no threats have been made against him and that he is pleading guilty freely and voluntarily because he is guilty. 30. Any modi?cation of this plea agreement must be in writing and signed by all parties. Filed at i?bUD i?lS'K Texas, on MM CDL 9?0 2017. David/Adler Attorney for Defendant . .i i Subscribed and sworn to before me on Cit-Lit, KL 2017. DAVID J. BRADLEY, Clerk UNITE STATE EDISTRICT CLERK By: #7 Deputy UniteHStates District Clerk 24 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 25 of 27 APPROVED: Raymond N. Hulser Chief, Public Integrity gection By: Robert Heberle Ryan J. Ellersick Trial Attorneys Public Integrity Section United States Department of Justice Abe Martinez Acting United SEW By: Melissa Annis Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of Texas 25 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 26 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. CRIMINAL NO. 4:17-cr-116 THOMAS DODD PLEA AGREEMENT -- ADDENDUM I have fully explained to Defendant his rights with respect to the pending Indictment. I have reviewed the provisions of the United States Sentencing Commission?s Guidelines Manual and Policy Statements and I have fully and carefully explained to Defendant the provisions of those Guidelines which may apply in this case. I have also explained to Defendant that the Sentencing Guidelines are only advisory and the court may sentence Defendant up to the maximum allowed by statute per count of conviction. Further, I have carefully reviewed every part of this plea agreement with Defendant. To my knowledge, Defen ?s decision to enter 'nto this agreement is an informed and voluntary one. David Adler Date Attorney for Defendant 26 Case 4:17-cr-00116 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 03/20/17 Page 27 of 27 I have consulted with my attorney and fully understand all my rights with respect to the Indictment pending against me. My attorney has fully explained, and I understand, all my rights with respect to the provisions of the United States Sentencing Commission?s Guidelines Manual which may apply in my case. I have read and carefully reviewed every part of this plea agreement with my attorney. I understand this agreement and I voluntarily agree to its terms. 320 5,2017 Thomas Dodd Date Defendant 27