Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Crim No.: 22-186 (PAD)

v.

REINALDO VARGAS-RODRIGUEZ,
Defendant.

UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM ON SENTENCING

An elected official’s public trust should not be for sale to the highest bidder. In 2020,

an FBI investigation revealed that widespread corruption was occurring within certain

municipalities in Puerto Rico. At the center, were contractors and businessmen who were

engaged in secretive, quid pro quo arrangements with elected officials, namely several mayors

of these jurisdictions1. The bribery schemes varied, but typically, as in defendant Vargas’s

case, involved the payments by the contractors of cash bribes to the mayors directly in

exchange for receiving lucrative government contracts and preferential treatment for the

payment of outstanding invoices. In all these cases, these bribes were always made in secret,

were always paid in cash, and were never reported to anyone.

The Government recommends that the Court send a strong message of deterrence to

both elected officials and contractors/business owners who engage in secretive, quid pro quo

arrangements with the officials that Puerto Rico’s citizens have entrusted with public office.

Accordingly, the United States is requesting that the Court sentence Mr. Vargas to a term of

1
The government’s investigation also included the prosecution of two (2) Vice Mayors and two (2)
Directors of Public Works.
1
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 2 of 8

imprisonment of thirty-seven (37) months. Such a sentence accounts for the seriousness of the

offense, the breach of public trust, and the need to provide an adequate deterrent for future

public officials and contractors. This sentencing recommendation further reflects Mr. Vargas’s

acceptance of responsibility and lack of criminal history.

I. Overview of the Case

Mr. Vargas was elected mayor of Humacao in November 2020 and assumed office in

January of 2021. Almost immediately after assuming office, Vargas began to accept bribes

and kickbacks from Individuals A and B in exchange for a lucrative waste disposal contract

and asphalt and concrete removal projects in Humacao.

Individual B provided $2,000 in November of 2020 and another $5,000 to Mr. Vargas

when his election was certified. Individual B also paid $5,000 to Vargas on April 15, 2021 in

order to have his contract in Humacao extended.

(Mr. Vargas leaving restaurant with $10,000 bribe payment)

Individual A also provided Vargas with a $5,000 cash payment on April 15, 2021 in

exchange for Vargas’s agreeing to award the municipal waste collection contract. Individual

A had previously provided $5,000 cash payments on two separate occasions – January of

2021 and March 18, 2021 – as bribe payments for the waste management contract. In total,

2
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 3 of 8

from January 2021, through April 15, 2021, Mr. Vargas accepted $27,000 in cash bribes in

exchange for future contracts being awarded to Individuals A and B. In July 2021, Mr. Vargas

facilitated the award of Humacao municipal contract number 2022-000240 to Company B.

II. Guideline Calculations

a. The Advisory Guidelines Range

It is well established that a court should consider a variety of factors in imposing a

sentence on a criminal defendant, including the applicable range established by the

Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Although the Guidelines are advisory in nature, courts “must

consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.” United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005). A sentencing court thus begins by calculating the applicable

guidelines range, which serves as “the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007); see also Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 351 (2009) (noting

that a sentencing court “must first calculate the Guidelines range”).

The court then must consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of

the defendant. See Nelson, 555 U.S. at 351 (explaining that after the court determines the

applicable guidelines sentencing range, it must “consider what sentence is appropriate for the

individual defendant in light of the statutory sentencing factors”).

The United States and the defendant have proposed the following advisory guidelines

as part of the Plea Agreement. (ECF No. 42, pp. 3-4.):

3
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 4 of 8

Sentencing Guidelines Calculations

Conspiracy - Federal Funds Bribery
(18 U.S.C. § 371)

Base Offense Level: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(a)(2): Defendant a public 14

official

Involving One or More Bribe: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(1) +2

Value of the Bribe exceeded $15,000.00: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2) cross +4

reference to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(C)

Involved Elected Public Official: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) +4

Acceptance of Responsibility: U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 -3

21
TOTAL ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL

The proposed guidelines are identical to the guideline range calculated by the

probation office (ECF No. 45, p. 9). These proposed guidelines contained in the Plea

Agreement result in a guideline sentencing range of 37-46 months of imprisonment.

b. The Section 3553(a) Factors

The advisory guidelines range is only one of several factors that this Court must

consider when imposing a sentence consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Kimbrough v.

United States, 552 U.S. 85, 90 (2007) (noting that guidelines ranges “serve as one factor among

several courts must consider”). The United States therefore addresses several § 3553(a) factors

that are of particular significance in this case.

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1))

4
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 5 of 8

The nature and circumstances of Mr. Vargas’s conduct require a serious and

meaningful punishment. As described in detail in the Plea Agreement and the PSR, Mr.

Vargas used his official position for his own financial gain. By accepting cash bribes from

contractors for essential services to his electorate, Mr. Vargas turned his back on the

community. Additionally, Mr. Vargas began participating in this corrupt scheme almost

immediately after his election victory and went to great lengths to ensure this corrupt scheme

was undetected. Corruption of this nature has a corrosive effect on citizens’ confidence that

their elected officials act with fidelity to the public’s best interest. At the same time, Mr.

Vargas has no previous criminal history, has remained successfully employed throughout his

life, and he has expressed remorse for his conduct. A sentence of thirty-seven months

punishes his unacceptable criminal conduct while also accounting for his lack of criminal

history and acceptance of responsibility.

2. The need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense,
to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the
offense (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)); and the need for the sentence imposed
to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct (18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(B))

“When it comes to political corruption, the community—historically and presently—

requires that real, tangible, and severe consequences meet those who gain a position of public

trust and then abuse that trust for personal gain.” United States v. Sorenson, 233 F. Supp. 3d

690, 699 (S.D. Iowa), aff’d, 705 F. App’x 481 (8th Cir. 2017). A meaningful term of

incarceration is required to promote respect for our anti-corruption laws and to restore faith

in the integrity of government. “Deterrence is a crucial factor in sentencing decisions for

economic and public corruption crimes.” United States v. Morgan, 635 F. App’x 423, 450 (10th

Cir. 2015). The sentence in this case should be sufficiently serious to deter both elected

5
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 6 of 8

officials and business owners from engaging in backroom, kickback arrangements that

undermine government and fair competition. The need for general deterrence is particularly

important here, because such quid pro quo arrangements are notoriously difficult for law

enforcement to detect. See, e.g., Sorenson, 233 F. Supp. 3d at 699.

In addition to promoting respect for anti-corruption laws and deterring

individuals from engaging in such corrupt behavior, strict sentences also serve to protect the

public from further harm. Mr. Vargas and others who abuse their positions of trust must

receive appropriately serious punishment, which is “[t]he only way to protect the public from

the ongoing problem of public corruption and to promote respect for the rule of law.” United

States v. Spano, 411 F. Supp 2d 923, 940 (N.D. Ill), aff’d, 447 F.3d 517 (7th Cir. 2006).

3. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct

District courts are to consider the need to avoid unwarranted disparities when

imposing sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(6). “Under this instruction, district courts must

take account of sentencing practices in other courts.” Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 108. “Indeed,

one of the purposes of the Guidelines is to maintain national uniformity in sentences.” United

States v. Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 626 (6th Cir. 2007). District courts court routinely impose,

and the First Circuit routinely approves, significant periods of incarceration for cases

involving bribery. See, e.g., United States v. Acevedo-Hernández, 898 F.3d 150, 171-72 (1st Cir.

2018) (affirming 120-month sentence for defendant judge convicted of accepting bribes at trial,

where defendant argued he only received $63,380 in bribes but sentencing judge noted he

would have imposed the same sentence regardless of whether certain adjustments were

proper); United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2012) (affirming 63-month sentence

6
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 7 of 8

of defendant after conviction at trial for paying $70,000 to $120,000 in bribes to a local

official).

Several public officials and business owners have recently been sentenced in the

District of Puerto Rico for the involvement in kickback bribery schemes like this one. In

United States v. Luis Arroyo-Chiques, 21-485 (SCC), the defendant, a former Mayor of Aguas

Buenas, was sentenced to 24 months of incarceration (21-485, ECF No. 43) for a single

violation of conspiracy to commit bribery. Mr. Arroyo similarly took cash consideration from

Individual A for the awarding of a lucrative government contract. Mr. Cintron-Suarez, the

former Mayor of Guayama, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 30 months on July

7, 2022, for taking bribes from Individual B in exchange for the awarding of contracts in the

municipality. See United States v. Cintron-Suarez, 22-151 (SCC). A former member of the Puerto

Rico House of Representatives, Nelson Del Valle Colon, was sentenced to fifty-seven (57)

months for his role in a bribery and kickback scheme that involved inflating employee salaries

in exchange for their agreement to pay kickbacks to him from their biweekly paychecks. (See

United States v. Del Valle-Colon, 20-260 (SCC), ECF No. 123, Plea Agreement, p. 14).

On February 22, 2023, Mario Villegas, a local business owner and partner of

Individual B was sentenced to forty-six (46) months imprisonment for his role in paying cash

bribes to public officials. Two Directors of Public Works have also been sentenced to

significant periods of incarceration for their involvement in receiving kickbacks. See United

States v. Ramon Conde-Melendez, 22-221 (PAD) (24 months) and United States v. Pedro Marrero-

Miranda, 22-251 (RAM) (30 months). Most recently, the former mayor of Aguas Buenas,

Javier Garcia-Perez, was sentenced to a period of incarceration of 37 months for his

7
 Case 3:22-cr-00186-PAD Document 48 Filed 07/10/23 Page 8 of 8

participation in an almost identical bribery scheme involving Individuals A and B (See United

States v. Javier Garcia-Perez, 22-185 (ADC).

These sentences acknowledge the severity of public corruption offenses, their impact

on the community, and the need to significantly punish those responsible. Accordingly, the

government urges the Court to adopt the recommendation set forth in the Plea Agreement

and this memorandum.

III. Conclusion

The United States respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence of thirty-seven

(37) months of imprisonment, which represents the low range of the advisory guideline range

and was agreed to by the parties as part of the Plea Agreement. In addition, the United States

requests that this period of incarceration be followed by a two (2) year period of supervised

release.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 10th day of July, 2023.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I electronically filed the present motion with

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the parties of record.

COREY R. AMUNDSON
Chief, Public Integrity Section
U.S. Department of Justice

/s/Nicholas W. Cannon
Nicholas W. Cannon (G01814)
Trial Attorney, Public Integrity Section
U.S. Department of Justice
1301 New York Ave., NW
10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-8187
nicholas.cannon2@usdoj.gov