You are on page 1of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE


AT KNOXVILLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


)
v. )
)
MARK HAZELWOOD ) No. 3:16-CR-20
SCOTT WOMBOLD )
JOHN FREEMAN ) Judge Collier
VICKI BORDEN )
JOHN SPIEWAK )
KATY BIBEE )
HEATHER JONES )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-58
v. )
) Judge Collier
ASHLEY JUDD )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-63
v. )
) Judge Collier
ARNOLD RALENKOTTER )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-68
v. )
) Judge Collier
JAMES S. STINNETT )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-69
v. )
) Judge Collier
HOLLY RADFORD )
______________________________________________________________________________

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 14470


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) No. 3:13-CR-70
v. )
) Judge Collier
KEVIN CLARK )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-77
v. )
) Judge Collier
MICHAEL SCOTT FENWICK )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-78
v. )
) Judge Collier
JANET WELCH )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-173
v. )
) Judge Collier
CHRISTOPHER W. ANDREWS )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-174
v. )
) Judge Collier
BRIAN MOSHER )
______________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )


) No. 3:13-CR-175
v. )
) Judge Collier
LEXIE HOLDEN )

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 14471


ORDER

The Court is faced with the responsibility of conducting sentencing hearings and imposing

judgments on these seventeen individual Defendants. Although their convictions and cases arise

out of a common investigation, some common facts, and the same or similar statutory violations,

each Defendant has a separate background, history, and involvement in the criminal violations.

For these reasons, their sentencing hearings will involve different Sentencing Guideline

considerations and calculations, different aggravating and mitigating factors, and different

personal characteristics. The Court anticipates there could be extensive argument regarding

sentencing issues for each Defendant. The Court also anticipates it might have to hear testimony

from witnesses to resolve some of these issues.

For these reasons, the Court did not consider it practical to hold one sentencing hearing for

all seventeen Defendants. To allow the Defendants and the United States (the “Government”) to

state and fully present their sentencing arguments, it was obvious the Court would have to arrive

at a reasonable method for dividing the Defendants into groups so that those Defendants most

closely situated to each other would have their sentencing hearings at or as close to the same time

as possible.

To assist the Court in determining the most reasonable schedule for the sentencing

hearings, the Court invited the Government to share with the Court and the individual Defendants

its views on an orderly and efficient schedule. (Doc. 498 in Case No. 3-16-cr-20.) The Court

indicated the Government should do so by informing the Court of the Government’s opinion of

the relative culpability of the Defendants.

The Government submitted its thoughts to the Court and suggested that each Defendant’s

position in the corporate structure of Pilot Flying J would be a reasonable method to group

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 14472


Defendants. (Doc. 499 in Case No. 3-16-cr-20.) The Government further suggested the three

Defendants convicted at trial should be the first Defendants sentenced. The Court also considered

the responsive filings of various Defendants. (See Docs. 500 & 504–06 in Case No. 3-16-cr-20;

Doc. 36 in Case No. 3:13-cr-63; and Doc. 39 in Case No. 3:13-cr-68.) These filings included

objections to the Government’s proposals, suggestions regarding the relative culpability of the

various Defendants, suggestions regarding the order and manner in which sentencing hearings

should be held, and various counsel’s scheduling conflicts.

The Court emphasizes that no Defendant’s sentence will be predetermined on any basis

whatsoever, including without limitation the Government’s proposed culpability or sentencing

hearing groups, the order in which the Defendants are scheduled or sentenced, the other Defendants

being sentenced on the same day, or any other information the Court has considered in setting a

schedule. The Court will conduct every sentencing in each of these matters in accordance with

the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

The Court adopts the Government’s suggestion that hearings be conducted first for the

Defendants convicted at trial. This will promote efficient and just sentencing if the Government

offers testimony from a cooperating Defendant about Guideline provisions for one or more of these

Defendants and an additional departure motion under USSG § 5K1.1 becomes appropriate.1

1
Defendant Scott Wombold asserts there is no reason to think testimony would be any less
likely for Defendants with plea agreements, who may dispute their loss amounts, than for
Defendants convicted at trial. (Doc. 504 in Case No. 3:16-cr-20.) But the number of issues on
which cooperating testimony could be relevant is more limited for Defendants who have plea
agreements than those who do not. It is therefore reasonable to predict less testimony is likely to
be necessary for sentencing a pleading Defendant. Moreover, any testimony that may be offered
at a pleading Defendant’s sentencing hearing is highly unlikely to come from a Defendant who
was convicted at trial and may want to appeal that conviction. Sentencing trial-convicted
Defendants first is therefore more likely to be consistent with the orderly filing of USSG § 5K1.1
motions.
4

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 14473


For the remaining Defendants, the Court will proceed according to the schedule at the

conclusion of this Order.2 The Court has considered the Government’s suggested culpability and

sentencing categories, the responses from the Defendants, and information available to the Court

in plea agreements and otherwise. The Court has concluded that the schedule below, rather than

the schedule proposed by the Government, will best facilitate the orderly and just sentencing of

the Defendants who have pleaded guilty in these cases. In setting this schedule, the Court has

considered factors such as potential loss amounts, numbers of victims, length of participation in

the conspiracy, and roles in the conspiracy. The Court has also considered the number of hearings

that can effectively be held on any given day. It goes without saying that the Court will have to

handle other sentencing hearings, guilty-plea hearings, and other matters during the time period.

As is the Court’s typical practice for sentencing hearings arising out of related criminal

conduct, the Court will conduct sentencing hearings set for the same day jointly.3

In a similar vein, Defendant Heather Jones asserts testimony against her beyond that
already presented at trial is unlikely. (Doc. 505 in Case No. 3:16-cr-20.) If more testimony were
to become necessary, she argues any such additional cooperation could be addressed by a motion
under Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure rather than a USSG § 5K1.1 motion.
(Id.) But the Government is in a better position than the Court or any Defendant to know the
likelihood of the Government’s seeking to present additional testimony at a given Defendant’s
sentencing hearing. Further, while a Rule 35 motion would certainly be possible, it would be less
efficient for the Government and the Court, and less advantageous for any Defendant who would
initially have a more severe sentence imposed and have to wait for the benefit of a Rule 35 motion.
2
This schedule may change depending upon unforeseen circumstances. If it becomes
necessary to make a change, the Court will endeavor to inform the parties as soon as possible.
3
The Court notes the concerns of Defendants Wombold and Jones about the specifics of
their respective offenses of conviction and the possible effects of being sentenced with a certain
group of Defendants. As stated above, no Defendant’s sentence will be affected by any such
considerations. Every sentencing this Court conducts considers each Defendant as an individual.

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 14474


Finally, the Court has considered the scheduling conflicts various counsel submitted for

June, July, and August. The Court will set sentencing hearings beginning in late August 2018.

Defendants’ sentencing hearings will be held at 2:00 p.m. [Eastern time] as follows4:

August 22, 2018

3:16-cr-20-1 Mark Hazelwood


3:16-cr-20-2 Scott Wombold
3:16-cr-20-7 Heather Jones

September 5, 2018

3:13-cr-174 Brian Mosher


3:16-cr-20-3 John Freeman
3:16-cr-20-4 Vicki Borden

October 3, 2018

3:13-cr-63 Arnold Ralenkotter


3:13-cr-68 James S. Stinnett
3:16-cr-20-5 John Spiewak

November 7, 2018

3:13-cr-70 Kevin Clark


3:13-cr-77 Michael Scott Fenwick
3:13-cr-173 Christopher Andrews
3:16-cr-20-6 Katy Bibee

December 19, 2018

3:13-cr-58 Ashley Judd


3:13-cr-69 Holly Radford
3:13-cr-78 Janet Welch
3:13-cr-175 Lexie Holden

4
Defendants are listed within their scheduled sentencing dates in case-number order. To
repeat, scheduling sentencing hearings on the same day does not mean the Court considers those
Defendants are linked together in a group as to culpability or sentencing; the Court has sought to
maximize the pace at which Defendants are sentenced without scheduling too many Defendants
for sentencing on any given day.

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 14475


The Government’s unopposed motion to reset the sentencing hearings of Defendants

Freeman, Borden, Spiewak, and Bibee (Doc. 499 in Case No. 3:16-cr-20) is GRANTED as

specified above.

SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:16-cr-00020-CLC-HBG Document 526 Filed 03/28/18 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 14476