Continued from part one:
Below you will find the court transcript for TNT Tony’s sentencing date of November 30, 2015. Here is video of the occasion
Feel free to copy this in your emails and websites as long as the following credit is given:
THE COURT: Court is ready to announce its proposed findings of fact and tentative sentence. Court is required pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3553 A to impose a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary to comply with the purposes of sentencing identified in 18 United States Code Section 3553 A 2. In determining the particular sentence to be imposed, the court has considered the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which promote uniformity in sentencing and assist the court in determining an appropriate sentence by weighing the basic nature of the offense as well as aggravating and mitigating factors. The court notes the parties have entered into a plea agreement pursuant to Rule 11 C 1 C of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The court has considered the plea agreement, statements of the parties, and the presentence investigation report. After reviewing the presentence report, the court finds that the sentencing guideline range of 78 to 97 months is correctly calculated based on a total offense level of 27 and criminal history category of two. The court has also considered the nature and circumstances of the offense and defendant’s history and characteristics.
This offense involves defendant commencing a fraudulent scheme known as 14DailyPlus.com in the spring of 2006. Shortly thereafter, defendant recruited his co-defendant, William Fox, a primary recruiter and promoter of the web site 14DailyPlus.com. Defendant also recruited a second person from Houston, Texas to promote the scheme. The web site advised, quote, investors, end quote, that they could invest money and expect a return of 14 percent per day or a total of 140 percent over a ten-day period by visiting the web site and clicking on advertiser’s web sites for a certain period of time. At least 202 investor victims were identified through the investigation. The total monetary loss amount of the victims totals over $1.6 million. After considering the above factors and the advisory sentencing guidelines –as I mentioned before, Mr. Renfrow, at your plea hearing, the court was going to wait ’til I reviewed the presentence investigation report before I decided whether or not to accept the plea agreement, and so, that’s now over time what I’ve been able to review. And in regards to that, as you heard me say, the guideline range, the recommended sentence is outside that guideline range, and my understanding is that the parties seek the binding plea agreement because it would bring certainty to the sentencing process, and assures defendant and the government they will benefit from the bargain they have struck, as well as that the parties believe that the interests of justice are served by the sentence, thereby assuring the sentence is consistent with the sentencing factors of 18 United States Code Section 3553 A. And in that regard, again, as you said at your plea agreement, as set out in the factual basis, it’s clear that you were involved in this scheme.
You pled to the conspiracy charge. It’s also clear that there were hundreds of victims that were involved, and that the victims did, in fact, sustain serious significant losses, and that’s in your plea agreement. And again, what’s clear from your plea agreement is that you were involved in that. In regards to your sentence –part of it is that, you know, the court does see a number of individuals that come with different types of cases. Every case is decided on its own merits, on its own defendants. They come with different backgrounds and different personalities. I would say as part of this, you do appear to have an interesting perspective on things that take place that you’re involved in. In regards to your sentence, the court is going to find for the reasons mentioned here in the courtroom by both Mr. Bartee and Mr. Rask that there was serious consideration and thought given to the case as it progressed, and that based on that review of the case, that there were identified several potential issues that could affect the disposition of the case. There was a motion to dismiss filed. Again, after review by both the government and defendant, there was discussions that led to in the end what the parties presented to the court as a resolution of this case by the plea agreement. The court would find at this time that a sentence outside the guideline range is warranted based on that. Court is going to find that a variance sentence should be imposed as it’s recommended in the 11 C 1 C plea agreement. The court does at this time accept the plea agreement recommendation and find that your term of imprisonment should be a term of imprisonment of 12 months and one day, and that’s to be followed by a three-year term of supervised release.
— Dinar RV News Facts (@dinarrvnews) December 24, 2015
The court believes that such a sentence is sufficient but not greater than necessary to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense. Further, the sentence should afford adequate deterrence to criminal contact –conduct, and protect the public from further crimes of the defendant. The three-year term of supervised release which is in addition to your imprisonment sentence will allow you the opportunity to receive correctional treatment in an effective manner, and will assist with community re-integration. In regards to that three-year term of supervised release, there are a number of conditions that you’re expected to follow. I will let you know –I’ll mention some of them now, but in regards to all those conditions, you’ll need to follow each and every one of those. I would let you know that if you fail to do so during those three years, that you would risk coming back to court. The court would conduct a hearing, and if it’s shown that you violated the conditions of your supervised release, the court can take your supervised release away from you and order that you be sentenced to a term of imprisonment for those violations. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Defendant is ordered to pay a special assessment of $100 to the crime victim’s fund. No fine is imposed due to the defendant owing restitution in this case. The court makes the following restitution findings based on a preponderance of the evidence and the presentence report. Number one, restitution totaling $1,692,803.26 is owed to the victims as outlined in Paragraph 55 of the presentence report. Number two, pursuant to provisions of 18 United States Code Sections 3663 A and 3664, the court is required to order restitution in the full amount of victims’ losses as determined by the court, and without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant. Number three, the court intends to waive interest on restitution. On August 24th, 2015, the court signed and filed a final order of forfeiture and imposition of forfeiture judgment in this case in the amount of $1,676,000. The court does intend to impose mandatory and special conditions of supervision as set forth in Part D of the presentence report. Mandatory conditions of drug testing and DNA collection are required by law. The drug testing condition is suspended based on the court’s determination that the defendant poses a low risk of future substance abuse.
Mr. Renfrow, you are prohibited by federal law from possessing or purchasing a firearm, destructive device, dangerous weapon or ammunition as a result of thisconviction. Do you understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Prohibition against possessing or purchasing a destructive device or other dangerous weapon is warranted based upon officer safety. The nature of the offense and history outlined in the presentence report warrant the conditions for the search condition. Special financial conditions will aid the probation officer in collecting restitution. Do the parties want to be heard in regards to voluntary surrender?
MR. BARTEE: Your Honor, Mr. Renfrow is requesting voluntary surrender. I would note for the court that he has a history of coming to court here, traveling here from California, and he did that again today. He’s likely to serve his sentence in California, so that if he were denied voluntary surrender, he would have to be transported back to the state where he lives. He has all ready met with S Probation in Sacramento to review bureau of prisons’ facility procedures. And so, for those reasons, we would ask that he be granted voluntary surrender. We understand that the government has –it will condition its acquiescence or approval in this regard on some –on some conditions, and Mr. Rask can state those for the court, and I believe that Mr. Renfrow is amenable to those.
THE COURT: Mr. Rask?
TNT Tony PTR Jan 19, 2011
MR. RASK: Yes, Your Honor. As the court mentioned, it has received letters regarding Mr. Renfrow and the potential sentence in this case. The United States Attorney’s office has received numerous communications via e-mail, letter, telephone calls, and so forth with respect to Mr. Renfrow’s current involvement with an Iraqi dinar –what I will call scam. And as a condition of him being allowed to voluntary –voluntarily surrender, we would ask that a condition of his release include that he have no involvement, no advocation, no participation whatsoever with the Iraqi dinar or any other sort of currency exchange activity, whether that be through internet communications, that could be as simply on a web site, whether it’s internet facilitated conference calls, whether it’s any sort of activity on Twitter or some other form of social media. As long as essentially, the defendant withdraws himself completely from anything to do with the Iraqi dinar and currency exchange, the United States would not oppose voluntary surrender.
THE COURT: Mr. Bartee?
MR. BARTEE: Your Honor, that’s what we anticipated would be the request, and it’s –that’s agreeable with defense.
THE COURT: Mr. Renfrow, the court has asked whether or not any party’s going to make a request for you to voluntarily surrender. Mr. Bartee’s done that on your behalf. He mentioned a number of things that went into that decision. The government does not have an objection to that as long as you abide by this condition, which I believe would be a modification of his bond at this time, very specifically set out a number of prohibitions involving your involvement with this other sounds like program or whatever you want to call it.
THE DEFENDANT: Thank you. I appreciate that.
THE COURT: I know other people would say it’s a scheme to defraud people as well.
THE DEFENDANT: But that’s okay. The truth comes out, but go ahead. I appreciate that. Go ahead.
THE COURT: So –so, the question to you is, did you understand what the government has now mentioned as the condition as to whether they will agree to this voluntary surrender?
THE COURT: I would let you know, however that’s set out as a condition of your bond, it will be set out as the government has proposed. If you, in fact, fail to abide by that prohibition or are involved in any way, in any manner, that what would happen is if that’s relayed to the court, the court is going to remove the voluntary surrender, and order that you be placed into custody and start serving your imprisonment sentence.
THE DEFENDANT: I understand.
THE COURT: You understand that?
THE DEFENDANT: Yep.
THE COURT: Any objections to the court’s proposed findings of fact and tentative sentence from the government?
MR. RASK: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: From defendant?
THE DEFENDANT: I had a question, though.
THE COURT: Why don’t you talk to Mr. Bartee first.
(Defendant conferring with attorney off the record.)
THE COURT: Anything else, Mr. Bartee?
MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Any objections to the court’s proposed findings of fact and tentative sentence from defendant?
MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Bartee, do you know of any lawful reason at this time why the court should not impose a sentence?
MR. BARTEE: I do not, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Renfrow, the court determines that the presentence investigation report and the previously stated findings are accurate, and orders those findings to be incorporated in the following sentence. Pursuant to Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it’s the judgment of the court the defendant, Anthony Renfrow, is hereby sentenced to the custody of bureau of prisons for a term of 12 months and one day on Count 1. This term of imprisonment shall be followed by three years of supervised release. Within 72 hours of release from the custody of bureau of prisons, defendant shall report to the US Probation Office in the district in which he is released. While on supervised release, defendant shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime, shall comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court, and the special and mandatory conditions of supervision as set forth in Part D of the presentence report.
It is ordered defendant shall pay United States a special assessment of $100 to the crime victim’s fund pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3013. Payment of the assessment is due immediately, and may be satisfied while in the bureau of prisons’ custody. No fine is imposed. Pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3663 A, defendant is ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,692,803.26 to the victims identified in the presentence report. Restitution is ordered joint and several with William Fox; that’s Southern District of California Docket Number 3:15 CR 01449-L-1, and payments shall be made to the US District Court, US Courthouse, 500 State Avenue, Room 259, Kansas City, Kansas, 66101.
Restitution is due immediately, and shall satisfied in payments of not less than ten percent of the funds deposited each month into defendant’s inmate trust fund account, and monthly installments of not less than five percent of his monthly gross household income over the three years of supervised release to commence 30 days after his release from imprisonment. Interest on restitution is waived. A final order of forfeiture and imposition of forfeiture money judgment has previously been filed by the court. Both the government and defendant are advised as to their respective right to appeal this sentence and conviction.
An appeal taken from this sentence is subject to 18 United States Code Section 3742, and subject to any waiver in the plea agreement in this case. Defendant is advised of your right to appeal the conviction and sentence, but only to the extent you’ve not waived that right in the plea agreement. You also can lose your right to appeal if you do not timely file a notice of appeal in the district court. Rule 4 B of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure gives you 14 days after the entry of judgment to file a notice of appeal. If you so request, the clerk of the court shall immediately prepare and file a notice of appeal on your behalf. If you’re unable to pay the costs of an appeal, you have the right to apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis, whichmeans without having to pay a filing fee.
At this time, voluntary surrender is granted with the condition that was mentioned here in the courtroom added to the other bond conditions you’re presently under. Mr. Renfrow, is there any reason for the court to believe you won’t follow all those conditions?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: Is there any reason for the court to believe that you won’t appear on the date, time, and place that you’re notified to appear to begin serving your term of imprisonment?
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: Defendant shall report to the facility designated by the bureau of prisons as notified by the US Marshals. Anything else from the government?
MR. RASK: Would move to dismiss Count 2, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So ordered. Anything else from defendant?
MR. BARTEE: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: If there’s nothing else, this hearing’s adjourned. Thank you.
(Whereupon, court recessed proceedings.)
I, Nancy Moroney Wiss, a Certified Shorthand Reporter and the regularly appointed, qualified and acting official reporter of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, do hereby certify that as such official reporter, I was present at and reported in machine shorthand the above and foregoing proceedings. I further certify that the foregoing transcript, consisting of 27 typewritten pages, is a full, true, and correct reproduction of my shorthand notes as reflected by this transcript.
SIGNED November 30, 2015.
Nancy Moroney Wiss, CSR, CM, FCRR