Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01773-216018

US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01773-216018

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by legalmatters

More info:

Published by: legalmatters on Sep 19, 2007
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/08/2014

pdf

text

original

 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANAINDIANAPOLIS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA))FILED)v. )April 27, 2006))IP 06-067-CR-02 M/FSCOTT D. HUGHEY,)Defendant.) 
PLEA AGREEMENT
The United States of America and Scott D. Hughey, (“the defendant”) hereby enter intothe following Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(B) of the Federal Rules of CriminalProcedure (“Fed. R. Crim. P.”):
RIGHTS OF DEFENDANT
1.The defendant understands his rights:(a)to be represented by an attorney;(b)to be charged by Indictment;(c)to plead not guilty to any criminal charge brought against him;(d)to have a trial by jury, at which he would be presumed notguilty of the charge and the United States would have to prove every essential element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt for him to be found guilty;(e)to confront and cross-examine witnesses against him and tosubpoena witnesses in his defense at trial;(f)not to be compelled to incriminate himself;(g)to appeal his conviction, if he is found guilty; and
 
2(h)to appeal the imposition of sentence against him.
AGREEMENT TO PLEAD GUILTYAND WAIVE CERTAIN RIGHTS
2.The defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights set out in Paragraph1(b)-(g) above. Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), the defendant will waive indictment and pleadguilty to a one-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the SouthernDistrict of Indiana, Indianapolis Division. The Information will charge the defendant withparticipating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price at whichready mixed concrete was sold in the Indianapolis, Indiana metropolitan area beginning in orabout July, 2000 and continuing until May 25, 2004 in violation of the Sherman Act,15 U.S.C. § 1.3.The defendant, pursuant to the terms of this Plea Agreement, will plead guilty tothe criminal charge described in Paragraph 2 above and will make a factual admission of guilt tothe Court in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, as set forth in Paragraph 4 below. The UnitedStates agrees that it will stipulate to the release of the defendant on his personal recognizance,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3142, pending the sentencing hearing in this case.
FACTUAL BASIS FOR OFFENSE CHARGED
4.Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presentedevidence sufficient to prove the following facts:(a)For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the “Relevant Period” is that periodbeginning in or about July 2000, continuing until May 25, 2004. During the Relevant Period, thedefendant was the President and a shareholder of Hughey, Inc., d/b/a Carmel Concrete Products(“Carmel”), an entity organized and existing under the laws of Indiana with its principal place of 
 
3business in Carmel, Indiana. During the Relevant Period, Carmel was a producer of ready mixedconcrete and was engaged in the sale of ready mixed concrete in the Indianapolis, Indianametropolitan area and elsewhere. Ready mixed concrete is a product whose ingredients includecement, aggregate (sand and gravel), water, and, at times, other additives. Ready mixed concreteis made on demand and, if necessary, is shipped to work sites by concrete mixer trucks. TheUnited States contends that had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presentedevidence to prove that the volume of commerce affected by the charged conspiracy attributableto the defendant was at least $15 million but not more than $37.5 million. For purposes of thisplea and sentencing only, the defendant waives his right to contest this calculation.(b)During the Relevant Period, the defendant participated in a conspiracywith other persons and entities engaged in the production and sale of ready mixed concrete, theprimary purpose of which was to fix the price of ready mixed concrete sold in the Indianapolis,Indiana metropolitan area. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant engaged inconversations and attended meetings with representatives of other ready mixed concreteproducers in the Indianapolis, Indiana metropolitan area. During
 
those meetings andconversations, the defendant and his co-conspirators reached agreements to fix the price at whichready mixed concrete was to be sold in the Indianapolis, Indiana metropolitan area.(c)During the course of the conspiracy, the defendant on at least twooccasions met with a representative of a competitor ready mixed concrete producer who had notattended the meetings among the conspirators at which prices, discounts, and conditions of salefor the metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana area were discussed and agreed upon by the defendantand his coconspirators. His purpose for meeting with the representative of the competitor was to

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->