JUDGMENT AND PROBATION/COMMITMENT ORDER
In the presence of the attorney for the government, the defendant appeared in person 09 15 2010
X WITH COUNSEL Gregory Nicolaysen, Panel
X GUILTY, and the court being satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.
NOLO CONTENDERE NOT GUILTY
There being a finding/verdict of
GUILTY, defendant has been convicted as charged of the offense(s) of:
18 U.S.C. §1341; 2: Mail Fraud; Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to Be Done as charged in Count 1 on the Indictment.
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 Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of:
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it is the judgment of the Court that the defendant, Sonny Vleisides, is hereby committed on Count 1 of the 23-Count Indictment to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of 26 months, which shall be deemed satisfied by time already served in custody in this matter, taking into consideration the time period that the defendant served in custody from the time of his arrest in Italy in April 2007 until his extradition to the Central District of California in February 2009, and the time period in custody from his arrival in this district in February 2009 until his release on bond
The Court notes that this term of 26 months is the equivalent of time served.
The defendant is hereby placed on supervised release, effective immediately, for a term of three years under the following terms and conditions:
1. The defendant shall comply with the rules and regulations of the U. S. Probation Office and General Order 318;
2. During the period of community supervision the defendant shall pay the special assessment in accordance with this judgment's orders pertaining to such payment;
3. The defendant shall not engage, as whole or partial owner, employee or otherwise, in any business involving loan programs, gambling or gaming activities, telemarketing activities, investment programs or any other business involving the solicitation of funds or cold-calls to customers without the express approval of the Probation Officer prior to engagement in such employment. Further, the defendant shall provide the Probation Officer with access to any and all business records, client lists and other records pertaining to the operation of any business owned, in whole or in part, by the defendant, as directed by the Probation Officer; and
4. The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of a DNA sample from the defendant.
The drug testing condition mandated by statute is suspended based on the Court's determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.
All fines are waived as it is found that the defendant does not have the ability to pay a fine.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3), restitution is not ordered because (1) the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable [3663A(c)(3)(A)]; and
(2) determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed ...