KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)
United States Attorney
EUMI L. CHOI (WVBN 0722)
Acting Chief, Criminal Division
JEFFREY L. BORNSTEIN (CSBN 99038)
Assistant United States Attorney
450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-6873
MICHAEL F. WOOD (DCBN 376312)
RICHARD B. COHEN (CSBN 79601)
VICTOR ALI (CSBN 229544)
Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue Rm. 10-0101
San Francisco, California 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-6660
Attorneys for the United States of America
|
FILED
DEC - 8 2004
RICHARD W. WIEKING
CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
INTER-TEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. CR-04-399-CRB
PLEA AGREEMENT
|
INTER-TEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., hereafter "INTER-TEL" or "defendant"),
a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Arizona, with
its principal place of business in Tempe, Arizona, and the United States
Department of Justice, by and through the United States Attorney's Office
for the Northern District of California and the Antitrust Division of
the Department of Justice (hereafter "the government"), enter into this
written plea agreement (the "Agreement") pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C)
of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure:
The Defendant's Promises
1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant agrees to waive
indictment and plead guilty to a two-count felony Information charging
the defendant with mail fraud and aiding and abetting in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 2, and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate
competition in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §
1. INTER-TEL agrees that the elements of the offenses and the maximum
penalties are as follows:
Elements of Count One - Mail Fraud:
- Defendant participated in a scheme to defraud or a plan for obtaining
money or property by making false promises or statements;
- Defendant knew that the promises or statements were false;
- The promises or statements were material;
- Defendant acted with the intent to defraud; and
- Defendant caused the mail to be used to carry out an essential part
of the scheme.
Maximum Penalties:
- Five years probation;
- A fine in the amount of $500,000 or twice the loss (or gain) from the
offense, whichever is greater;
- Mandatory special assessment of $400;
- Restitution.
Elements of Count Two -- Sherman Antitrust:
- The conspiracy, agreement, or understanding described in the Information
was knowingly formed, and was existing at or about the time alleged;
- The Defendant knowingly became a member of the conspiracy, agreement,
or understanding, as charged;
- The alleged conspiracy constituted an unreasonable restraint of
interstate commerce; and
- The offense was carried out, in part, in the Northern District of
California within the five years preceding the filing of the Information.
Maximum Penalties:
- Five years probation;
- A fine in the amount of $10 million or twice the loss (or gain) from the
offense, whichever is greater;
- Mandatory special assessment of $400;
- Restitution.
2. INTER-TEL agrees that it is guilty of the offenses to which it will plead
guilty, and it agrees that the following facts are true:
FACTUAL BASIS FOR MAIL FRAUD OFFENSE CHARGED
- From at least December 1999 to approximately March 2001, INTER-TEL
sold and installed telecommunication equipment including PBXs (Private
Branch Exchange). It also provided maintenance and other services as
needed for the equipment it supplied.
- During the relevant period, E-Rate was a program created by Congress
in the Telecommunication Act of 1996 and operated under the auspices
of the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to provide funding
to permit schools and libraries to connect to and utilize the Internet.
The FCC designated the Universal Services Administrative Company ("USAC"),
a non-profit corporation, to administer the E-Rate program. The E-Rate
program was designed to ensure that the neediest schools received the
most financial help. All participating school districts were required
to fund a percentage of the cost of the equipment and services acquired
under the E-Rate program. That percentage, however, was determined based
on the number of students in the district qualifying for the United
States Department of Agriculture's school lunch program, with the neediest
school districts eligible for the highest percentage of funding.
- During the relevant period, applications for E-Rate funding far
exceeded the funding available. To ensure that E-Rate funding was distributed
to the widest number of applicants, USAC required all applicants to
comply with various rules and procedures including: (1) only USAC approved
equipment, services and supplies would be eligible for funding, and
(2) local school districts were required to follow competitive bidding
procedures in accordance with local and state law to ensure that the
school districts got the lowest possible prices from the responsive
bidders.
- On or about December 15, 1999, INTER-TEL and a company that manufactured
and installed video-teleconferencing switches (hereafter "VX Company")
entered into an agreement under which the defendant agreed to pay VX
Company a fee for all business opportunities VX Company brought to the
defendant and a fee if VX Company assisted in managing those business
opportunities.
- During the relevant period, VX Company employed two persons (Consultant
One and Consultant Two) to work as sales representatives. Consultants
One and Two specialized in marketing VX Company products to educational
institutions, including local school districts. During the relevant
period Consultants One and Two also acted as consultants to school districts
in designing computer networks, identifying potential government sponsored
funding sources (including the E-Rate program), applying for those funds,
and selecting vendors to supply the specified equipment and services
funded by those programs.
- In or before December 1999, Consultants One and Two began working with the
San Francisco Unified School District (hereafter "SFUSD") in obtaining E-Rate
program funds. Working with a SFUSD official, these consultants put together
a Request for Proposal for equipment and services to be funded by E-Rate.
- On or about January 13, 2000, INTER-TEL submitted its bid on the
SFUSD E- Rate project. INTER-TEL included VX equipment in its E-Rate
proposal and bid. Consultant One ran the bid opening, and, together
with an SFUSD Official, opened and reviewed the bids. Consultant One
then declared that the defendant had submitted the winning bid for the
PBX portion of the project, after declaring that the only other bidder
for PBX had failed to comply with the bid requirements. Consultant One
also declared that a national data company ("DATA") had submitted the
winning bid for the data equipment portion of the project, that a local
computer company had submitted the low bid on the server portion of
the project, and finally, that a local cabling contractor had submitted
the low bid on the cabling portion of the bid. On January 13 or 14,
2000, Consultant One, Consultant Two, and the SFUSD Official decided
to make DATA the prime contractor for a portion of the project and to
have the local computer company and the local cabling company act as
subcontractors to DATA. The defendant was given the PBX portion of the
project.
- On or about January 15 through18, 2000; Consultants One and Two met with
DATA'S employees to prepare the USAC Application Form 471 for the SFUSD and
other school districts. The Form 471 is a school district's application for
E-Rate funding. It is supposed to set out the selected vendors' bid amounts,
memorialized in contracts, for the equipment and services called for by the
district's Request for Proposal. Consultant One told DATA'S employees the total
prices she wanted to submit to USAC on the Form 471s and then directed them
to prepare false spreadsheets justifying those prices. Consultant Two discussed
the equipment lists and prices with INTER-TEL in order to assist in hiding the
ineligible video-conferencing equipment in INTER-TEL's E-Rate submission. With
DATA'S assistance, Consultant One prepared the SFUSD Form 471 with inflated
prices. In addition, defendant assisted Consultants One and Two in falsely describing
the actual equipment to be supplied to the SFUSD. This included hiding the VX
Company video-conferencing equipment, which was not eligible for funding under
the E-Rate program, in order to have the E-Rate program pay for that equipment.
On or about January 19, 2000, Consultant Two delivered the SFUSD Form 471 to
USAC. Sometime shortly thereafter, the defendant learned that the SFUSD Form
471 had been submitted to USAC with inflated prices and did nothing to inform
USAC that the Form 471 prices had been inflated above the amounts originally
bid for the project. For the SFUSD, those prices were approximately $26 million
greater than the amounts the vendors had bid for the project. Specifically,
the data equipment price was increased from $19,776,318 to $22,987,223. The
server prices were increased from $9,275,880 to $21,987,223. The cabling price
was increased from $13,697,838 to $21,875,698. Finally, the defendant's PBX
price was increased from $19,403,732 to $21,409,369. At the same time, the number
of schools to be covered by the project was reduced from 50 to 46.
- In late May or early June 2000, USAC's Schools and Libraries Division ("SLD")
began a review of the SFUSD Form 471 submitted in January 2000. As part of that
review, the SLD asked the SFUSD to supply certain information to the SLD to
justify certain parts of the project. Consultant One, and others acting under
her direction, submitted spreadsheets to the SLD which contained false information
concerning the bidding process, the bidding participants, the winning bids and
the bid amounts. Based in part on these false representations, on September
21, 2000, the SLD approved funding for the SFUSD E-Rate project, in part, as
follows: $18,953,751 for data, $21,875,698 for cabling and $17,820,886 for PBX,
including the required 17% co-pay to be paid by the SFUSD. The SLD specifically
denied any E-Rate funding for computer servers.
- At no time during the relevant period did the defendant disclose to the
SFUSD superintendent or the San Francisco School Board that the funding requests
to USAC had been increased over the original bid amounts, that there were inflated
estimates contained in the bid documents, or that the parties had included ineligible
video-conferencing equipment which had been hidden in the documents submitted
to USAC.
- During the relevant period, for the purpose of executing its scheme, the
defendant caused the SLD to mail a letter dated September 22, 2000 to the SFUSD
in San Francisco, California in which the SLD agreed to make a funding commitment
based on the false and fraudulent information submitted in support of the SFUSD
E-Rate Project.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR SHERMAN ACT OFFENSE CHARGED
- For purposes of the Count Two bid rigging violation in this Plea Agreement,
the "relevant period" is approximately December 1, 1998 until at least December
31, 2000. During the relevant period, the defendant was a provider of equipment
and services related to telecommunications, Internet access, and internal communication
connections in the United States.
- During the relevant period, the defendant participated in a conspiracy
with one or more vendors of equipment and services related to telecommunications,
Internet access, and/or internal connections, a purpose of which was
to suppress and eliminate competition for E-Rate program projects,
including those identified in Exhibit A
(hereinafter E-Rate projects).
- In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant reached an agreement with
its co-conspirators to frustrate the competitive process on the E-Rate projects
by allocating contracts and submitting fraudulent and non-competitive bids.
To carry out this conspiracy, the defendant discussed with these co-conspirators
prospective bids for the E-Rate projects agreed with these co-conspirators who
would be the lead contractor on the project and who would participate on the
project as subcontractors to the designated lead contractors, submitted fraudulent
and noncompetitive bids in accordance with the conspiratorial agreement, and
engaged Consultants One and Two, described above. These Consultants took steps
to ensure the success of the conspiracy by eliminating and disqualifying bids
from non-conspirators and either directly awarding the contracts or using their
best efforts to persuade the school district officials to award contracts to
the designated lead contractors.
- As part of the conspiracy, Consultants One and Two successively caused to
be awarded E-Rate project contracts to the designated lead contractors. The
defendant agreed to pay, and did pay, Consultants One and Two's employer, VX
Company, a fee and agreed to purchase and install, and did purchase and install,
equipment from VX Company on the E-Rate projects.
- During the relevant period, in accordance with the E-Rate project contracts
obtained through the conspiracy by the defendant and its co-conspirators, equipment
and services were delivered and payments for that equipment and services were
received that traveled in interstate commerce. The business activities of the
defendant and its co-conspirators in connection with the sale of that equipment
and services affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially
affected, interstate trade and commerce.
- Acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were carried out within the Northern
District of California. The conspiratorial meetings and discussions described
above took place in the United States, and at least one of those communications
originated or was received by a conspirator in the Northern District of California.
3. The defendant agrees to give up all rights that it would have if
it chose to proceed to trial, including the rights to a jury trial with
the assistance of an attorney; to confront and cross-examine government
witnesses; to remain silent or testify; to move to suppress evidence
or raise any other Fourth or Fifth Amendment claims; to any further
discovery from the government; and to pursue any affirmative defenses
and present evidence.
4. The defendant agrees to give up its right to appeal its conviction,
the judgment, and orders of the Court. The defendant also agrees to
waive any right it may have to appeal any sentence consistent with this
plea agreement.
5. The defendant agrees to have its sentence determined under the United
States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") and waives all constitutional
challenges to the validity of the U.S.S.G. The defendant waives any
right it may have under cases such as Blakely v. Washington and
its progeny to have facts that determine its statutory maximum sentence
of Guidelines fine range under the U.S.S.G. (including any facts used
to determine its offense level, base fine amount, culpability score
or any specific offense characteristic or other enhancement or adjustment
under the U.S.S.G., as well as any pecuniary gain or loss resulting
from the charged offense) alleged in an indictment and found by a jury
beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant agrees that the facts that
determine its statutory maximum sentence or Guidelines fine range will
be found by the Court at sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence
and that the Court may consider any reliable evidence, including hearsay,
in making such determinations.
6. The defendant agrees not to file any collateral attack on its conviction
or sentence, at any time in the future after it is sentenced, except
for a claim that its constitutional right to the effective assistance
of counsel was violated.
7. The defendant agrees not to ask the Court to withdraw its guilty
plea at any time after it is entered, unless the Court declines to accept
the sentence agreed to by the parties. Either party may withdraw from
this agreement if the Court does not accept the agreed-upon sentence
set out below.
8. If acceptable to the Court, both parties agree to waive the presentence
investigation and report pursuant to Rule 32(C)(i) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, and ask that the defendant be sentenced at the
time the guilty plea is entered under the provisions of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 32(c)(l)(A)(ii) and U.S.S.G. § 6A1.1. The defendant agrees that
the Sentencing Guidelines should be calculated as follows, and that
it will not ask for any other adjustment to or reduction in the offense
level or for a downward departure of any kind, including for its continuing
cooperation (utilizing the Guidelines effective November 1, 2000):
For Count One:
a. |
Base Offense Level (8C2.1, 8C2.3 and 2F1.1): |
6 |
b. |
Specific offense characteristics: (Anticipated Loss > $1.5
million) |
+12 |
c. |
More than Minimal Planning: |
+ 2 |
d. |
Adjusted offense level: |
20 |
For Count Two:
a. |
Base Offense Level (8C2.1, 8C2.3 and 2R1.1): |
10 |
b. |
Specific offense characteristics: |
|
|
Bid Rigging (2Rl.l(b)(l)) |
+1 |
|
Volume of Commerce (2Rl.l(b)(2)(E))
(Total of sales to two (2) school districts
$5.7 million) |
+3 |
c. |
Adjusted offense level 14 |
14 |
Multiple Counts
a. |
Grouping (3D1.1 (a)) |
|
|
Different victims - different harm (3D1.2 & 3D1.3) |
|
|
Group 1 - Mail Fraud offense level:
|
20 |
|
Group 2 - Bid Rigging offense level: |
14 |
b. |
Combined Offense Levels (3D1.4) |
|
|
Highest offense level - Group 1: |
20 |
|
Group 2 (within 8 levels):
|
1/2 |
|
Combined offense level: |
21 |
Fine Determination
a. |
Base Fine (8C2.4): |
|
|
The greatest of: |
|
|
Offense Level Fine Table
(8C2.4(d)):
|
$910,000 |
|
Base Fine (2Rl.l(d)(l), 8C2.4(b))
(20% of volume of commerce): |
$1.14 million |
|
Greatest |
$1.14 million |
b. |
Culpability Score (8C2.5):
(> 1000 employees) |
5 + 4 |
|
Acceptance of Responsibility: |
-2 |
|
Total Culpability Score:
|
7 |
|
Minimum/Maximum Multiplier (8C2.6): |
1.4 to 2.8 |
|
Fine Range (8C2.7): |
$1,596 to $3,192 million |
9. INTER-TEL understands that as part of its plea and the separate civil settlement
that it will pay $ 1,721,000 in criminal fines. The money paid in connection
with the civil settlement shall satisfy any obligation to make restitution.
(See U.S.S.G. § 8C2.9) In view of all facts and circumstances of this case,
including INTER-TEL's continuing cooperation with the government, the parties
believe that the sentence recommended is fair and just in accordance with 18
U.S.C. §§ 3553, 3571 and 3572.
$1,721,000 |
Criminal Fine |
$7,000,000 |
Civil Settlement and Restitution |
$8,721,000 |
Total |
10. Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
the parties agree that an appropriate disposition of this case is that INTER-TEL
receive the following criminal sentence:
- INTER-TEL shall be placed on probation for a period of 3 years on
conditions including that INTER-TEL:
- commit no violations of federal or state law;
- comply with the terms and conditions of the civil settlement
attached as Exhibit B;
- comply with the Special Conditions of Probation attached as
Exhibit C; and
- cooperate fully with
the United States as set forth below.
- Within two business days from the date this Plea Agreement is accepted
and sentence is imposed, INTER-TEL shall pay a criminal fine in the
amount of $1,721,000. The criminal fine shall be paid to the Clerk of
the United States District Court, Northern District of California, in
accordance with instructions from the Clerk.
- On the date this Plea Agreement is accepted and sentence is imposed,
INTER-TEL shall pay a civil settlement (including restitution) in
the amount of $ 7,000,000 to the Financial Litigation Unit, United
States Attorney's Office, Northern District of California, by FEDWIRE.
This money shall be distributed in accordance with the civil settlement
agreement, attached as Exhibit B.
- INTER-TEL shall comply with the Special Conditions of Probation
attached as Exhibit C to include, among
other things, creating a Corporate Compliance Program, designating
a Compliance Officer responsible for monitoring all aspects of the
Compliance Policy, training all key personnel in public entity procurement
requirements, ensuring that there are both internal and external audits
of public entity contracts, and making reports to the defendant's
CEO and Board of Directors and the FCC Enforcement Division and FCC/OIG
concerning the defendant's efforts to comply with all of the Special
Conditions of Probation.
- On the date of sentencing, INTER-TEL will pay a special assessment
of $800.
- The defendant will cooperate fully and truthfully with the United
States in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal
investigation of violations of federal mail and wire fraud, antitrust
and related criminal laws involving the sale of equipment and services
funded by the E-Rate program, any other federal criminal investigation
resulting therefrom, and any litigation or other proceedings arising
or resulting from any such investigation to which the United States
is a party ("federal proceeding").
11. The ongoing full and truthful cooperation of the defendant shall
include, but not be limited to:
- producing to the United States all documents, information, and other
materials, wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control
of the defendant, requested by the United States in connection with
any federal proceeding;
- using its best efforts to secure the ongoing, full, and truthful
cooperation, as defined in Paragraph 12 of this Plea Agreement, of each
current and former director, officer or employee of the defendant as
may be requested by the United States, including making these persons
available, at the defendant's expense, for interviews and the provision
of testimony in grand jury, trial, and other judicial proceedings in
connection with any federal proceeding.
12. The ongoing full and truthful cooperation of each person described
in Paragraph 11(b) above will be subject to the procedures and protections
of this paragraph, and shall include, but not be limited to:
- producing all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal
documents, and other materials, wherever located, requested by attorneys
and agents of the United States;
- making himself or herself available for interviews, not at the expense
of the United States, upon the request of attorneys and agents of the
United States;
- responding fully and truthfully to all inquiries of the United States
in connection with any federal proceeding, without falsely implicating
any person or intentionally withholding any information, subject to
the penalties of making false statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001) and
obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503); and otherwise voluntarily
providing the United States with any material or information not requested
in (a) - (c) of this paragraph that he or she may have that is related
to any federal proceeding; and
- when called upon to do so by the United States in connection with
any federal proceeding, to testify fully, truthfully, and under oath
before a grand jury, in trial, and in connection with any other ancillary
judicial proceedings pursuant to subpoena, subject to the penalties
of perjury (18 U.S.C. § 1621), making false statements or declarations
in front of the grand jury or in court proceedings (18 U.S.C. §
1623), contempt (18 U.S.C. §§ 401-402), and obstruction of
justice (18 U.S.C. §1503).
13. INTER-TEL understands and agrees that, should it or the United
States withdraw from this Agreement in accordance with Paragraph 7,
INTER-TEL may thereafter be prosecuted for any criminal violation of
which the government has knowledge, notwithstanding the expiration of
any applicable statute of limitations following the signing of this
Agreement.
14. INTER-TEL agrees not to intentionally provide false information
to the Court, the Probation Office, Pretrial Services, or the government;
or fail to comply with any of the other promises it has made in this
Agreement. INTER-TEL agrees not to commit or attempt to commit any crimes
before sentence is imposed. INTER-TEL agrees that, if it fails to comply
with any promises it has made in this Agreement, then the government
will be released from all of its promises in this Agreement, including
those set forth in paragraphs 17 through 19 below, but INTER-TEL will
not be released from its guilty pleas.
15. INTER-TEL agrees that this Agreement and the attached Exhibits
A, B, C
and D contain all of the promises and agreements
between it and the government, and it will not claim otherwise in the
future.
16. INTER-TEL agrees that this Agreement binds the United States Department
of Justice, excepting the Tax Division, only, and does not bind any
other federal, state, or local agency.
The Government's Promises
17. The government agrees not to file or seek any additional charges
against the defendant that could be filed as a result of the investigation
into collusion and fraud that led to the captioned information, or arose
out of the defendant's participation in the E-Rate program from 1998
to the date of sentencing.
18. The government agrees that the appropriate sentence in this case
should be as set forth in paragraph 10 above, unless the defendant violates
the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
19. The government agrees that, if requested, it will advise the appropriate
officials of any governmental agency considering any administrative
action of the fact, mariner, and extent of the cooperation of the defendant
as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative
action, if any, to take.
The Defendant's Affirmations
20. INTER-TEL confirms that it has had adequate time to discuss this
case, the evidence, and this Agreement with its attorney, and that its
attorney has provided it with all the legal advice that it requested.
21. This Agreement has been authorized, following consultation with
counsel, by the Board of Directors of INTER-TEL, by corporate resolution
dated December 7, 2004. A certified copy of the corporate resolution
is attached as Exhibit D to this Agreement
and is incorporated herein. INTER-TEL confirms that its decision to
enter a guilty plea is made knowing the charges that have been brought
against it, any possible defenses, and the benefits and possible detriments
of proceeding to trial. INTER-TEL also confirms that its decision to
plead guilty is made voluntarily. Except as set forth in this plea agreement,
INTER-TEL has received no promises or inducements to enter its guilty
plea, nor has anyone threatened it or any other person to cause it to
enter its guilty plea.
DATED:
|
_______________________________
STEVEN G. MIHAYLO
Chairman, Inter-tel Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
|
DATED: DATED: 12-08-04 |
_______________________________
KEVIN V. RYAN
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
|
|
_______________/s/________________
JEFFERY L. BORNSTEIN
Assistant United States Attorney |
19. The government agrees that, if requested, it will advise the appropriate
officials of any governmental agency considering any administrative
action of the fact, manner, and extent of the cooperation of the defendant
as a matter for that agency to consider before determining what administrative
action, if any, to take.
The Defendant's Affirmations
20. INTER-TEL confirms that it has had adequate time to discuss this
case, the evidence, and this Agreement with its attorney, and that its
attorney has provided it with all the legal advice that it requested.
21. This Agreement has been authorized, following consultation with
counsel, by the Board of Directors of INTER-TEL, by corporate resolution
dated 2004. A certified copy of the corporate resolution is attached
as Exhibit D to this Agreement and is incorporated
herein. INTER-TEL confirms that its decision to enter a guilty plea
is made knowing the charges that have been brought against it, any possible
defenses, and the benefits and possible detriments of proceeding to
trial. INTER-TEL also confirms that its decision to plead guilty is
made voluntarily. Except as set forth in this plea agreement, INTER-TEL
has received no promises or inducements to enter its guilty plea, nor
has anyone threatened it or any other person to cause it to enter its
guilty plea.
DATED: |
_______________/s/________________
STEVEN G. MIHAYLO
Chairman, Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc.
Defendant
|
DATED: |
KEVIN V. RYAN
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
_______________________________
JEFFREY L. BORNSTEIN
Assistant United States Attorney
|
DATED: |
_______________/s/________________
MICHAEL F. WOOD
RICHARD B. COHEN
VICTOR ALI
|
DATED: |
_______________/s/________________
MICHAEL F. WOOD
RICHARD B. COHEN
VICTOR ALI Attorneys,
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division |
I have fully explained to my client all the rights that a criminal defendant
has and all the terms of this Agreement. In my opinion, my client understands
all the terms of this Agreement and all the rights it is giving up by
pleading guilty, and, based on the information now known to me, its
decision to plead guilty is knowing and voluntary.
ATED: 12-8-04 |
_______________/s/________________
LEO P. CUNNINGHAM
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati,
Professional Corporation
Attorneys for Defendant Inter-tel
Technologies Inc.
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
USA et al,
Plaintiff,
v.
Inter-Tel Technologies, Inc. et al,
Defendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Case Number: CR04-00399 JSW
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
|
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the
Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California.
That on December 10, 2004, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached,
by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s)
hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing
said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's
office.
Jeffrey L. Bornstein
United States Attorney's Office
450 Golden Gate Avenue
11th floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Michael Wood
Plaza 9 Building
55 Erieview Plaza, Ste 700
Cleveland, OH 44144
Leo P. Cunningham
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
Dated: December 10, 2004
|
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Barbara Espinoza, Deputy Clerk |
|