The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. David O. Carter, U. S. District Judge
AMENDED JUDGMENT (original sentence date 3/23/2005)
JUDGMENT AND PROBATION/COMMITMENT ORDER
In the presence of the attorney for the government, the defendant appeared in person on this date. August 9 2010
X WITH COUNSEL G. David Haigh (Advisory)
GUILTY, and the court being satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea. NOLO
There being a finding/verdict of GUILTY, defendant has been convicted as charged of the offense(s) of:
18 U.S.C. §1623: False Declaration Before Court (Counts 1 and 2), Class D Felonies; 18 U.S.C. §1344: Bank Fraud (Counts 3 and 4), Class B Felonies; 18 U.S.C. §152(3): False Statement in Bankruptcy Court (Count 5), Class D Felony.
The Court asked whether there was any reason why judgment should not be pronounced. Because no sufficient cause to the contrary was shown, or appeared to the Court, the Court adjudged the defendant guilty as charged and convicted and ordered that:
(Pursuant to the Mandate from the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit filed July 14, 2010)
It is ordered that the defendant shall pay to the United States as special assessment of $500.00, which is due
It is ordered that the defendant shall pay restitution in the total amount of $248,208.00 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3663A. The amount of restitution ordered shall be paid as follows:
Amount Wells Fargo Bank $248,208.00 1050 Lake Drive, Suite 400 West Covina, CA 91790 Attn: Jan Morrie Re: Loan #654-3170020-0001
Pursuant to the mandate of the Ninth Circuit dated July 14, 2010, the judgment is amended to reflect that defendant need not pay restitution if Wells Fargo Bank has received the full amount of restitution through foreclosure sale.
Pursuant to Guideline §5E1.2(e), all fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine in addition to restitution.
Restitution and the fine shall be paid in full immediately.
The defendant shall comply with General Order No. 01-05.
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Leigh-Davis Glass, is hereby committed on Counts 1-5 of the Fourth Superseding Indictment to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 78 months.
This term consists of 78 months on each of Counts 3 and 4 of the Fourth Superseding Indictment, and 60 months on each of Counts 1, 2, and 5 of the Fourth Superseding ...