I N THE UNITED S TAT E S ISTRICT COURT

FOR T HE ~'m S T E R N DI S TR I CT O~ NEvi YORK

UNI T E D S TATE S OF .tI.!1ER I CA ,

v. 0 2 - CR - 7 3' - .II. (1)

MARK CONGI ,

De f e n d a n t ,
LE

PLEA AGREEMENT

Th e de f e n d a rir; , ~·!A . K CONGr , and t h e Un i t e d St at. e s Att o rne y f o r

t h e Ne s t e r n Di t r i. c t. o f 11e\:/ Yo rk (h e r e i na f t e r , " r.h e g o v e r n men t " )

h e r e b y e n ter in t o a p l e n agreeme n t wi t.h th e t e r ms a n d c on d i t ' o n s as

s et o u t b e l o w .

I . THE PLEA .~ POSSI BLE SE NTENCE

1. T he d e f end a n t agr ee s ~o p ,e ad g uilt y ~o Co u n t One of the

Se c o nd Su p e r s e di n g I n d i c t me nt (he r e i n a f t er , " I nd i c me rit;11 ) , wh i c h

cou n . c ha r g es a v io a - i on I T i tl e 18 , Uni t e d S t at e s Co ce , Sect i o n

19 6 2 (d) (::<.acke 'eeri !1 Co n s p i r a c y) and wh i ch ca r r i e s a maxi mu m

po s s i 1 e s e n t en ce o f a. - e r m of i mp r i s o n me n t o f 20 y e a r s , a fi n e of
v
$ 8 0 0 , 0 0 0 , or both , a mand c o r y $ _0 0 s p e c i a l a s s e s s men t, an d a te r m

of s pervi s e ~ r e o e a s~ up to J y e ar s . Th e d e Ze n d a nt u nde rs tand s

,~

, J
GOVERNMENT ~":!t:.~
EXHIBIT

GJ-15
 that the penalties set forth in this paragraph are the maximum

penalties that can be imposed by the Court at sentencing.

2. The defendant understands that, with respect to both

property damage and bodily injuries caused, directly or indirectly,

by the defendant the Court must require restitution in an amount to

be determined, but in no event greater than $400,000, which is to

be paid to the victims or, where such losses have been paid by

insurance carriers, to the carriers, as part of the sentence

pursuant to Sentencing Guidelines § SE1.l and Title 18, United

States Code, Section 3663A.

3. The defendant understands that, if it is determined that

. the defendant has violat:ed any of the terms or conditions of

supervised release, the defendant may be required to serve in

prison all or pare of the term of supervised release( up to 2

years, without credit for time previously served on supervised

release. As a consequence, in the event the defendant is sentenced

to the maximum term of incarceration, a prison term imposed for a

violation of supervised release may result in the defendant serving

a sentence of imprisonment longer than the statutory maximum set

forth in paragraph 1 of this agreement.

-2-
 II. SENTENCING GUIDELINES

4. The defendant understands that the Court must consider

but is not bound by the Sentencing Guidelines (sentencing Reform

Act of 1984).

ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME

5. The defendant understands the nature of the offense set

forth in paragraph 1 of this agreement and understands that if this

case proceeded to trial, the government would be required to prove

beyond a reasonable doubt the following elements of the crime:

a. that the defendant and others entered into the unlawful

agreement charged in the Indictment (that is, agreeing to violate

18 U.S.C. §1962(c) by agreeing with others to conduct and

participate, directly and indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs

of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activitYi and

more specifically, that the defendant and others would commit

mul t iple acts of extort ion on behalf of the Local 91 Criminal

Enterprise defined in paragraph 1 of the Indictment);

b. that the defendant knowingly and willfully became a member

of the conspiracy; and

-3 -
 c. that the defendant agreed that a conspirator would commit

at least two acts of racketeering in the conduct of the affairs of

the enterprise charged in the Indictment.

FACTUAL ~ASIS

6. The defendant and the government agree to the following

facts, which form the basis for the entry of the plea of guilty

including relevant conduct:

Commencing in approximately 1996, the exact date

being unknown, and continuing thereafter up to and
including May lS, 2002, in the Western District of
New York, the defendant, MARK CONGI, together with
Ocminick Dellaccio, Salvatore Bertino, Albert
Celeste, Andrew Shomers, Salvatore Spatorico, Paul
Bellreng, Andrew Tornascik, Jr., and other members
of a labor union known as Laborers International
Union of North America, Local 91 (hereinafter,
"Local 91") whose identities are known to the
parties, constituted an enterprise as that term is
defined in Title 18, United States Code, Section
1961 (4); namely, a group of individuals and a labor
union associated-in-fact, which enterprise was
engaged in and the activities of which affected
interstate commerce.

The principal objective of the enterprise in. which

the defendant and others participated consisted of
illegally seeking to obtain and obtaining property
by acts and threats involving extortion. The
property sought to be obtained and obtained
consisted of jobs performed on construction
projects in Niagara County, New York, and the
payment of wages and benefits associated with those
jobs. The de fendant and other members of the
enterprise obtained and attempted to obtain such

-4-
property from union and non-union construction
contractors, and from union and non-union employees
and laborers. In the time period of 1996 through
May 2002, the defendant served as President and
Business Agent of Local 91.

As part of this conspiracy, and as described

further in Racketeering Acts One and Two, in or
about May, 1996, the exact date being unknown, the
defendant learned of certain work related disputes
that Local 91 members were at that time having with
employees of the Vulcan Shaw Floor company
(hereinafter, "Vulcan") and the Louis P. Ciminelli
company (hereinafter, ("Ciminelli"). The disputes
related to aspects of vinyl tile setting work being
performed by Vulcan employees at a Target store
located in Niagara Falls, New Yoz k , as well as
attempts by Local 91 to induce Ciminelli to hire
unwanted and unnecessary laborers. At the time of
the disputes, the defendant and other Local 91
members knew that Vulcan employees were members of
a carpenters union, and not members of Local 91.
In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendant
instructed Salvatore Bertino, Andrew Shomers, and
other members of Local 9l whose identities are
known to the parties, to enter the Target
construction site during the evening hours, and
thereafter destroy certain property of vulcan so as
to induce Vulcan, and its employees, to part with
aspects of their jobs and the payment of wages and
benefits associated with those jobs as well as to
l

induce Ciminelli to hire additional laborers. The

codefendant.s engaged in this conduct during the
evening hours of May 13 1 1996, when Salvatore
Bertino, Andrew Shomers, and other Local 91
members, broke into the Target store construction
site and thereafter committed multiple acts of
property destruction upon the tools and equipment
of the employees of Vulcan, as well as upon the
tool s and equipment. of the Vulcan itself, such
destruction including dumping a large quantity of
black tile adhesive over newly-installed vinyl
flooring and a nt.o a tool box, and removing and
thereafter throwing a floor buffing machine used by
Vulcan into a field behind the Target construction
site.

-5-
Also in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in
Count One of the Lnd i.c t rnerrt., and as described
further in Racketeering Acts Five and six, sometime
prior to on or about April 21, 1997, the defendant,
Albert Celeste r and others followed employees of
Sansla, Inc., as such employees left their job site
at the Drinking Hater Treatment Plant (DWTP) in
Niagara Falls, New York, for the purpose of
de t e rrru na nq where such employees lived and for
attempting to instill fear in the minds of the
Sansla emp Loye e s . At the time, employees of
Sansla, Inc., were performing an asbestos reIToval
project at the DWTP, were not members of any labor
union, and the defendant, Albert Celeste, Paul
Bellreng, and other members of Local 91 wanted to
ob~ain the work being performed, and the payment of
associated wages and benefits received by the
Sansla employees. The defendant additionally
directed Anthony Cerrone, Andrew Shomers, Robert
Malvestuto, Jr., and Randall Butler to throw two
explosive devices into the residence of the
employees of SarrIsa, Inc., such residence located
in the Town of Niagara, New York, with said conduct
of the codefendants in fact occurring during the
evening hours of April 21, 1997. One of the
employees of Sansla suffered permanent injury as a
result of the April 21, 1997 attack.

Also in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in

Count One of tlw Indictment, and as charged in
Racketeering Acts Seven and Eight, at various times
between in or about March 1998 and in or about
September 1998, the defendant, together with
Salvatore Spatorico, and other members of Local 91
engaged in numerous acts of actual and threatened
violence to pe rnoris and property, at the Clarion
Hotel renovation project (hereinafter "the Clarion
project") unci the Niagara Falls Hotel construction
prOlect in Niagara Falls, New York. These acts of
actual and threatened violence were undertaken in
order to obtain from Hospitality Restoration &
Builders, Inc. ("HRB"), Servico Hotels and Resorts,
Inc. ("Servico" ) , and their non -rm i on employees,
jobs and the payment of wages and benefits
associated with those jobs. Among other things I

the de f eridarit; provided members of Local 91 with

eggs and stars to be thrown at the Clarion hotel
and upon itG property.

-6-
Also in f uz-t he r ance of the conspiracy charged in
Count One of the Indictment, and as charged in
Racketeering Acts Nine and Ten, during the morning
hours of September 16, 1998, Mark Congi di rected
members of Local 91, including Andrew Shomers,
Anthony Cerrone, Steven Markle, Larry Quarcini, and
others to immediately go to the Wegman's
oorie t ru c t Lon project on Military Road in Niagara
Falls, New York. The defendant also went to the
wegman'S project, and there joined several other
Local 91 members, including Dominick Dellaccio,
Salvatore Be:r:t.:.ino
I Shomers, Cerrone, Markle /
Quarcini, and others. The defendant thereafter
instructed the Local 91 members to confront members
of a bricklayers union who at that time were
performing tile~,etting work for the E. G. Sackett
Company, Inc. Tr;e ensuing attack of the
tilesetters coris i s t.ed of the members of Local 91
punching, kicking, stomping and otherwise striking
the Sackett employees. The reason that the
defendant and ot.her Local 91 members participated
in this attack was to obtain from the Sackett
company and its employees property consisting of
aspects of the j cbs be i.nq performed by Sackett and
its employees I and the wages and benefits
associated with those jobs.

Also in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in

Count One, and as described further in Racketeering
Acts Eleven, 'I'we Lve , Thirteen, and Fourteen, the
defendant I t:ogether with Salvatore Bertino, Andrew
Shomers, and other members of Local 91, agreed to
use fear and jntimidation in an effort to obtain
certain jobs and the payment of wages and benefits
associated with those jobs, from union carpenters
employed by the Mader Construction Company
(Racketeering Acts Eleven and Twelve) J and from
union e Le c tr i c iane employed by Ferguson Electric
Company (RLlcketeering Acts Thirteen and Fourteen)
during construction of the Niagara Falls High
School in Niagara PaIls, New York, in the time
period of 1999 through 2000. The fear and
intimidatioIl Hued by the defendant and other
members of Local 91 during this time period
included striking e nd threatening a member of the
carpenter's union, and puncturing the tires of a
vehicle owned by a member of the electrician's
union.

-7-

- ..- ..... ---------------~-------------~-------

 The defendant further agrees that he instructed
Andrew Shomers to use fear and intimidation in an
effort to obtain certain jobs and the payment of
wages and benefits associated with those jobs, from
union laborers employed by Old Castle Precast,
Inc., in the time period of May 21, 2001 through
May 22, 2001 (Racketeering Acts Fifteen and
Sixteen). during a construction project occurring a
the Niagara Falls Airbase. The defendant further
instructed Salvatore Bertino to use fear and
intimidation in an effort to obtain certain jobs
and the payment of wages and benefits associated
with those jobs, from union carpenters employed by
Scrufari Construction Conpany and E & B Equ i prre nt;
and Purni t ur e , Inc., in the time period of July,
2001 through August, 2001, during a construction
proj ect occurring at the Lewiston Porter Middle
School (Racketeering Acts Seventeen and Eighteen).
The defendant further agrees he assisted Joel
Cicero in the extorr.ion of the Pro serve
corporation, during the construction project
occurring at the Lewiston-Queenston Bridge in the
time period of September, 2001 through April, 2C02.

The above facts are set forth for the limited

purpose of complying with Rule 11 (f) and are not
intended to serve as a complete statement of the
defendant's criminal conduct.

BASE OFFENSE LEVEL

7. The government and the defendant agree that Guidelines

§§ 2El.l(a} (l) applies to the offense of conviction and provides

for a base offense level of 19.

-8-
 $PECIFIC OFFENSE CHARACTERISTICS
USSG CHAPTER 2 ADJUSTMENTS

8. The government and the defendant agree that the following

specific offense characteristic apply:

a. With respect to the attempted extortion of Vulcan and

Cininelli, a one-level increase pursuant to Guidelines
§§ 2B3.2(b) (2) and 2B3.1(b) (7) (B) (loss to victim
exceeding $~O,OOO).

b. With respect to the attempted extortion of Bansia and its

employees, a two-level increase pursuant to Guidelines §
2B3.2 (b) (1) for express or implied threat of death; a
six-level increase pursuant to Guidelines §
2B3.2(b) (4) (e) for permanent bodily injury sustained by
a victim; and a four-level increase pursuant to
Guidelines ~ 2I33. 2 (b) (3) (A) (iv) for use of a dangerous
weapon (the 2 explosive devices)

c. With respect to the attempted extortion of E.G. Sackett

and its employees a o:1e-level increase pursuant to
I

Guidelines &§ 283.2 (b) (2) and 2B3.1 (b) (7) (B) (loss to
victim exceeding $10, 000); a two-level increase pursuant
to Guidelines § 2B3.2 (b) (1) for express or implied threat
of bodily injury; a two-level increase pursuant to
Guidelines § 2B3.2(b) (4) (B) for bodily injury sustained
by four victims i and a two-level increase pursuant to
Guidel ines § 283.2 (b) (5) (B) for restraint of the victims.

d. With respect to the attempted extortion of Mader and

its employees, a two-level increase pursuant to
Guidelines § 2B3. 2 (b) (4) (A) for bodily injury sustained
by the v~cti.m.

9. As a result, the government and the defendant agree that

the offense levels for R~cketeering Acts One and Two (Vulcan) are

19 and that these t.wu offense levels should be combined for a

combined offense level of 19; for Racketeering Acts Five and Six

(Sansla) are 30 and t.ha t; these two offense levels should be

-9-
combined for a combined offense level of 30; for Racketeering Acts

Nine and Ten (Sackett) are 25 and that these two offense levels

should be combined for tl combined offense level of 25; and for

Racketeering Acts Eleven and Twelve (Mader) are 20 and that these

two offense. levels should be combined for a combined offense level

of 20. The government unci the defendant agree that the offense

levels for the remaining acts of racket.eering are all 18.

USSG CHAPTER 3 ADJUSTMENTS

10. The government and the defendant agree that the following

adjustment to the base offense level applies:

A one (1) level upward adjustment pursuant to Guidelines

§§ 3D1.1, 3D1.2, 3Dl.3, and 3Dl.4, because the grouping
rules of these sections create an additional half unit of
prosecution for a total of 1-1/2 units of prosecution.
This upward s d j u c t rne nt; results in an adjusted offense
level or 31.

In addition, the parties agree that the defendant should

receive a four (4) level upward adjustment pursuant to Guidelines

§ 3B1.1(a) because the defendant was an organizer and leader of

criminal acti vi ty charged in Count One, and that such acti vi ty

involved five or more participants.

The parties further agree that the defendant should receive a

two (2) level upward adjustment pursuant to Guideline!'! § 3C1.1 for

-10-
obstructing and impeding the administration of justice during the

course of the prosecution of the instant offense.

COMBINED ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL

11. Based on Paragraphs 7 through 10 of this agreement, it is

the understanding of the government and the defendant that the

defendant's combined adjusted offense level for Count One of the

Indictment is 37.

~CCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

12. At sentencing, the government agrees not to oppose the

defense request that the Court apply the two (2) level downward

adjustment of Guidelines §§ 3E1.1 (a ) (acceptance of responsibility) I

which would result in a total offense level of 35.

CRIMJNAL HISTORY CATEGORY

13. It 1S the understanding of the government and the

defendant that the defendant's criminal history category is I. The

defendant understands th~t if the defendant is sentenced for, or

convicted of l any other c~arges prior to sentencing in this action

the defendant I s criminal history category may increase. The

-11-
defendant understands that the defendant has no right to withdraw

the plea of gui 1 ty based on the Court's determination of the

defendant's criminal history category.

GUIDELINES' APPLICATION, CALCULATIONS AND IMPACT

14. It is the urrde r-s t.aridi.nq of the government and the

defendant that I with a total offense level of 35 and criminal

history category of I, the defendant's sentencing range would be a

term of imprisonment of 168 to 210 months, a fine of $20,000 to

$200,000, and a period of supervised release of 2 to 3 years. The

parties further agree to request that the Court sentence the

defendant to a term of imprisonment of 180 months (fifteen years) .

Notwithstanding this, thp. defendant understands that at sentencing

the defendant is subject to the maximum penalties set forth in

paragraph 1 of this agreement.

15. The government and the defendant agree to the Sentencing

Guidelines calculations set forth in this agreement and neither

party will advocate or recommend the application of any other

Guideline or sentence, except as specifically set forth in this

agreement. A breach of this paragraph by one party will relieve

the other party of any agreements made in this plea agreement with

respect to sentencing motions and recommendations.

-12-
 III. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

16. In the ovent the defendant's plea of guil ty is withdrawn,

or conviction vacated, either pre- or post-sentence, by way of

appeal, motion, post-conviction proceeding, collateral attack or

otherwise 1 the defendant agrees not to assert the statute of

limi tations as a defense to any criminal offense involving or

related to extortion and RICO conspiracy, which is not time barred

as of the date of this agreement, and which could reasonably be

based on the facts known to the government on the date of the entry

of the defendant's plea. This waiver shall be effective for a

period of six months following the date upon which the withdrawal

of the guilty plea or vacating of the conviction becomes final.

IV. GOVERNMENT RIGHTS AND RESERVATIONS

17. The defendant understands that the government has

reserved the right to:

a. provide to the Probation Office and the Court all

the information and evidence in its possession that
the government deems :::-elevant concerning the
defendant's background, character and involvement
in the offense charged, the circumstances
surrounding the charge and the defendant's criminal
history;

b. allocute and respond at sentencing to any

statements made by the defendant or on the

-13-
 defendant's behalf that are inconsistent with the
information and eVldence available to the
government;

c. allocute for a 15 year sentence; and

d. modify its position with respect to any sentencing

recommendation or sentencing factor under the
Guidelines including criminal history category, in
the event that subsequent to this agreement the
government receives previously unknown information
regarding the recommendation or factor.

18. At sentencing, the government will move to dismiss the

original Indictment, the First Superseding Indictment, and the open

counts of the Second Superseding Indictment in this action pending

against the defendant insofar as they relate to the defendant.

19. The defendant agrees that any financial records and

informat-ion provided by the defendant to the Probation Office,

before or after sentencing, may be disclosed to the United States

Attorney/s Office for use in the collection of any unpaid financial

obligation.

20, The defendant fully understands that, to the extent that

the government has or may have any items of physical evidence in

this case that could be subjected to DNA testing pursuant to 18

U.S.C. §3600, the defendant has the right to file a motion with the

Court to have such items tested for DNA in an attempt to prove that

the defendant is actually innocent of the crime to which the guilty

-14-
plea has been entered in this case. The defendant has discussed

this right with defense counsel, and the defendant knowingly and

voluntarily waives the right to make such a motion and to have such

DNA testing performed on any such items the government may have or

may obtain in the future. The defendant fully understands that

because the defendant is waiving these rights, any physical

evidence that may exist or be found to exist in this case will

likely be destroyed or will otherwise be unavailable for DNA

testing in the future.

v. APPEAL RIGHTS

21. The defendant understands that Title 18, United States

Code, Section 3742 affords a defendant a limited right to appeal

the sentence imposed. The defendant, however, knowingly waives the

right to appeal, modify pursuant to Title 18, united States Code,

Section 3582 (c) (2) and collaterally attack any component of a

sentence imposed by the Court which falls within or is less than

the sentencing range for imprisonment) a fine and supervised

release set forth in Section II, ~14 above, notwithstanding the

manner in which the Court determines the sentence. The defendant

further agrees not to appeal a restitution order which does not

exceed the amount set forth in Section I of this agreement.

-15-
 22. The defendant understa~ds that by agreeing to not

collaterally attack the sentence, the defendant is waiving the

right to challenge the sentence in the event that in the future the

defendant becomes aware of previously unknown facts or a change in

the law which the defendant believes would justify a decrease in

the defendant's sentence.

23. The government waives its right to appeal any component

of a sentence imposed by the Court which falls within or is greater

than the sentencing range for imprisonment, a fine and supervised

release set forth in Section II, ~14 above, notwithstanding the

manner in which the Court determines the sentence. However, in the

event of an appeal from the defendant IS sentence by the defendant,

the government reserves its right to argue the correctness of the

defendant's sentence.

VI. COOPERATION

24. The de f endant will cooperate with the government by

providing .cornp Le t.e and truthful information regarding the

defendant's ~nowledge of any and all criminal activity, whether

undert.aken by the defendant or others, in any way involving or

related to his participation In and knowledge of the facts

underlying the Indictment in this case. The defendant's

-16-
cooperation shall also include submitting to interviews by

government attorneys and agents, as well as testifying truthfully

and completely before grand juries and at such pre-trial and trial

proceedings as the government shall deem necessary.

25. In exchange for the defendant's plea of guilty and

cooperation as set forth in this agreement, the defendant will not

be prosecuted by the Office of the United States Attorney for the

Western District of New York for any other federal criminal

offenses committed in the Western District of New York in any way

involving or related to Indictment 02~CR-073-A committed up to the

date of the £i ling of such Indictment, and about which the

defendant provides complete and truthful information. Such a

promise of non-prosecution does not foreclose any prosecution for

an act involving murder, at tempted murder, or act of physical

violence against the person of another, or conspiracy to commit an

act of violence other than those about which the defendant has

informed the government prior to his signing this plea agreement.

Further I no testimony, statements or tangible obj ects provided

by the defendant in compliance with this agreement (or any

information directly or indirectly derived therefrom) will be used

against the defendant in any criminal case, except a prosecution

for perjury or making false statements.

-17-
 26. The defendant understands that, notwithstanding the

defendant (s obligation to cooperate with the government as set

forth in this agreement, the government wi 11 not file a motion

pursuant to Guidelines §5Kl.l or Title 18, Dni ted States Code,

Section 3553 (e) for a downward departure from the defendant' 5

sentencing range or pursuant to Rule 35(b) for a reduction of the

defendant's sentence.

27. This agreement does not preclude the prosecution of the

defendant for perjury or making false statements in the event the

defendant testifies falsely or provides false information to the

government.

28. Upon the request of the defendant, at the time of

sentencing, the government will make the nature and extent of the

defendant'(; compliance with this agreement known to the Court, and

the government. agrees that, assuming the defendant's cooperation

has been truthful and complete, the defendant may use his

cooperation in any arguments he may present to the Court in an

effort to persuade the Court to impose a sentence of 180 months.

29. The defendant's attorney is expressly permitted to be

present at any time the defendant is questioned or interviewed by

-18-
government agents regarding the matters set forth in this

agreement.

VII. FORFEITURE PROVISIONS

30. Pursuant to his conviction of Count One of the

Indictment, the defendant, MARK CONGI, agrees that his conviction

of Count One establishes, by a preponderance of the evidence, a

basis for the defendant to forfeit to the United States all of his

right, title and interest in holding any office, stewardship, or

other position in which he represents other members of the Union,

and he agrees to forfeit same pur auant; to Title 18 U.S.C. §

1963 (a) (1) and (2) .

31. The defendant further agrees and understands that after

the plea is entered, the Court will enter a Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture forfeiting the above-described property rights. Upon

entry of a Final Order of Forfeiture, the property rights of the

defendant will be forever forfeited.

32. The defendant agrees that the above-described property

rights are properly forfeitable due to the defendant • s racketeering

activity as set forth in Count One of the Indictment. The

defendant agrees to fully assist the government in the forfeiture

-19-
of the above-described property rights and to take whatever steps

are necessary to effectuate this forfeiture at the time the plea is

entered or at any time thereafter as. directed by the government.

33. The defendant knowinglYl intelligently, and voluntarily

waives his right to a jury trial on the forfeiture of the above-

described property rights. Defendant knowingly, intelligently and

voluntarily waives all constitutional, legal and equitable defenses

to the forfeiture of these property rights in any proceeding,

including any jeopardy defense or claim of double jeopardy, whether

constitutional or statutory, as to this criminal proceeding or any

related civil proceeding referred to within this agreement.

Defendant further agrees to waive any claim or defense under the

Eighth Amendment to the United states Constitution, including any

claim of excessive fine regarding the forfeiture of assets by the

United States, the State of New York, or its subdivisions.

34. The defendant agrees and understands that forfeiture of

the aforementioned property rights as authorized herein pursuant to

Title 18 U.S.C. § 1963 shall not oe deemed an alteration of the

defendant's sentence. Further the defendant agrees and understands

that the f.orfeiture shall not be treated as satisfaction of any

fine, restitution, cost of imprisonment, or any other penalty this

court may impose upon the defendant in addition to forfeiture.

-20-
 35. The defendant freely, voluntarily, knowingly and

intelligently waives any right to appeal or collaterally attack any

matter in connection with this prosecution and sentence, including

the forfeiture of assets as provided in this agreement.

VIII. TOTAL AGREEMENT AND AFFIRMATIONS

36. This plea agreement represents the total agreement

between the defendant, MARK CONGl t and the government. There are

no promises made by anyone other than those contained in this

agreement. This agreement supersedes any other prior agreements,

wri t ten or oral, entered into between the government and the

defendant.

TERRANCE P. FLYNN
United States Attorney
Western District of New York

BY:
HOCHUL, JR
u. S. Attorney

Dated: August ~, 2006

BRETT A. HARVEY
Assistant U. S.

Dated: August ~, 2006

-21-
 I have read this agreement, which consists of 22 pages. I

have had a full opportunity to discuss this agreement with my

attorney, Joel L. Daniels, Esq. I agree that it represents the

total agreement reached between myself and the government. No

promises or representations have been made to me other than what is

contained in this agreement. I understand all of the consequences

of my plea of guilty. I fully agree with the contents of this

agreement. I am signing this agreement voluntarily and of my own

free will, and in signing it, I voluntarily and freely admit those

facts set forth in paragraph 6 of this agreement.

i!i!A?r-'
Defendant

Dated; ugust & 2006

JOE L. IELS, ESQ.

Attorney for the Defendant

Dated, August ~ 2006

-22-