U.S. v. Vandebrake

771 F.Supp.2d 961

2011-1 Trade Cases P 77,344

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,

v.Steven Keith VANDEBRAKE, Defendant.United States of America, Plaintiff,

v.Kent Robert Stewart, Defendant.

Nos. CR10–4025–MWB

CR10–4028–MWB.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Western Division.

Feb. 8, 2011.

Andre M. Geverola, Laura Heidi Manschreck, Robert Michael Jacobs, U.S. Department of Justice, Chicago, IL, Timothy T. Duax, U.S. Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.Francis L. Goodwin, Baron, Sar, Goodwin, Gill & Lohr, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING SENTENCING

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
¦                 ¦
+-----------------+

I.  INTRODUCTION                                                        967

    A.   The Charges And The Guilty Pleas                               967

         1.  Defendant VandeBrake                                       967
         2.  Defendant Stewart                                          967
         3.  Notice of intent to consider an upward variance            968
         4.  Sentencing hearing                                         968

    B.   Offense Conduct                                                968

         1.  Defendant VandeBrake                                       969

             a.  Background and the investigation                       969
             b.  Evidence related to Count One                          970
             c.  Evidence related to Count Two                          971
             d.  Evidence related to Count Three                        971
             e.  Volume of commerce attributable to VandeBrake          971

         2.  Defendant Stewart                                          972

             a.  Background and the investigation                       972
             b.  Evidence related to the Information                    973
             c.  Disputed bid-rigging projects                          973

                 i.  Sibley Airport patching project                    973
                 ii. East Okoboji beach project                         975

                 iii. Spencer Lincoln School project                    977

             d.  Price–fixing—price sheets                              978

    C.   Defendant's Personal Characteristics                           981

         1.  Defendant VandeBrake                                       981
         2.  Defendant Stewart                                          982

II. LEGAL ANALYSIS                                                      983

    A.   Breach Of The Plea Agreement In Stewart's Case                 983

         1.  The applicable two-step analysis                           984
         2.  Determination of the breach                                984

    B.   The Methodology For Determination Of A Sentence                986
    C.   Policy Disagreements With Sentencing Guidelines                987
    D.   Determination Of The Guidelines Sentence                       989

         1.  Defendant VandeBrake                                       989
         2.  Defendant Stewart                                          990

    E.   Determination Of Whether To Depart                             990

         1.  Defendant VandeBrake                                       991
         2.  Defendant Stewart                                          991

             a.  Departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1.                      992
             b.  Departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.11.                     994
             c.  Departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.12.                     996
             d.  Departure under U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0.                      997

    F.   Do § 3553(a) Considerations Justify A Variance?                999

         1.  The § 3553(a) Factors                                      999
         2.  Defendant VandeBrake                                       999

                 The nature and circumstances of the offense/need for
             a.  sentence                                               999
             b.  The history and characteristics of the defendant       1005
             c.  The kinds of sentences available                       1008
             d.  Any pertinent policy statement                         1009
             e.  Avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities            1009
             f.  Remaining § 3553(a) factor                             1011
             g.  Fine                                                   1011
             h.  Summary                                                1012
             i.  Alternative sentence of imprisonment                   1013

         3.  Defendant Stewart                                          1014

                 The nature and circumstances of the offense/need for
             a.  sentence                                               1014
             b.  The history and characteristics of the defendant       1015
             c.  The kinds of sentences available                       1015
             d.  Any pertinent policy statement                         1016
             e.  Avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparities            1016
             f.  The need to provide restitution                        1017
             g.  Fine                                                   1018
             h.  Summary                                                1018

III. CONCLUSION                                                         1018

    A.   VandeBrake                                                     1018
    B.   Stewart                                                        1019
 

Writer Pearl S. Buck cogently observed in her novel The Good Earth, “Hunger makes a thief of any man.” Defendants Steven Keith VandeBrake and Kent Robert Stewart came before the court for sentencing on February 8, 2011, for violations of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Neither defendant, however, suffered from hunger, at least as Pearl Buck knew it, but from insatiable greed, which is all the more shocking because both were already wealthy, multi-millionaire businessmen. Sir Francis Bacon wrote, “Opportunity makes a thief.” While Stewart's greed was at least tempered a modicum by Stewart's misguided motivation to ensure the jobs and livelihood of his employees, VandeBrake's appalling greed knew no such bounds and was fueled by the unique ease and opportunity that his industry, concrete sales, gave him in establishing a concrete cartel in northwest Iowa.¹ The defendants, although dressed in the attire of hard working businessmen, were nothing more than common thieves, and serial ones at that. Like a neighborhood thief, they stole from friends, acquaintances, businesses and local governments.² The defendants tools of their trade were not dark clothing worn in midnight burglaries facilitated by pry bars and screw drivers. Instead, in ordinary business attire and in the glare of broad daylight, they used the ordinary communication tools of modern commerce and business, cell phones, Blackberries, and e-mail to rob their victims. Unlike the neighborhood thief who values high end TV's, computers, jewelry, and furs, the defendants specialized in cold hard cash. Unlike the neighborhood thief whose victims immediately recoiled in shock at the loss of their property, the defendants stole from their victims without them ever knowing it. Their actions, clever and cunning, but taken with full knowledge and intent to violate this Nation's criminal antitrust laws.³

The court recognizes that the parties are heavily invested in the two plea agreements worked out between the defendants and the prosecution. Defense counsel, being vigorous advocates for the defendants, quite rightly endeavored to negotiate the best possible deal for their clients. The prosecution, on the other hand, has a broader obligation. As Justice Sutherland explained so eloquently some seventy years ago,

The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the twofold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor-indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.

Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 S.Ct. 629, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935); see Model Rule of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.8 cmt. [1] (2007) (The prosecution has the responsibility to be “a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate.”). To those ends, the prosecution has worked diligently to “do justice” in these cases through the terms of the plea agreements worked out with the defendants. The prosecution's view, however, is hampered because it comes to these cases with a perspective narrowed by its prosecution of only antitrust cases. With all due respect, the prosecution lacks the undersigned's breadth of experience, which comes from presiding over more than 2,600 sentencings, on a wide array of criminal conduct, in over sixteen years on the federal bench. The court's role and duties differ from both that of the prosecution and defense counsel. As Judge Learned Hand observed, “[a] judge is more than a moderator; he is charged to see that the law is properly administered and it is a duty which he cannot discharge by remaining inert.” United States v. Marzano, 149 F.2d 923, 925 (2d Cir.1945)....