Free Sentencing Statement - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Action No. 04-CR-00088-REB UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JON L. CLARK, Defendant. DEFENDANT' MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING S

The Defendant, Jon L. Clark, by and through his attorney, David W. Stark of Faegre & Benson, LLP, submits this Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing in order to assist the Court with regard to the sentencing determinations that must be made in this case. Mr. Clark requests that the Court impose a sentence of probation. I. INTRODUCTION

Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) provides that the Court should impose a sentence no longer than necessary to satisfy the purposes of the sentencing statute. As discussed below, in the circumstances of this case, incarceration is unnecessary to meet the purposes of the statute and, therefore, is inappropriate under Section 3553. Mr. Clark pled guilty to a violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a); 78(ff), and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1 and 240.13b2-2 for making false statements in an Annual Report to the SEC. Mr. Clark is a 60-year-old fly rod maker. He currently lives in Navajo Dam, New Mexico with his wife, and is attempting to earn an income making

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 2 of 18

and restoring fly rods. As the result of a tragic car accident in 1990, Mr. Clark' wife lost s her right lower leg, and her mobility is confined to a wheelchair or crutches. Mr. Clark spends a significant amount of time every day caring for his wife and attending to her daily needs. Mr. Clark has no prior criminal record other than minor traffic violations, and prior to this case, was a longtime Colorado resident. He is a man of good character. So much so, that despite having the least significant involvement of any defendant in the illegal scheme to which he pled guilty, he was the only defendant who immediately agreed to disgorge all profits he made as a result of the illegal action. In sum, he contributed almost $179,000 to the settlement fund established to compensate the damaged shareholders. Mr. Clark is, and has been since the beginning of these proceedings, remorseful and apologetic for his actions. As evidenced by his immediate consent to the final judgment in the SEC proceedings, and eventual plea in this case, Jon Clark accepted responsibility for his actions, and has proven himself a man of good character throughout the federal prosecution against him and his co-defendants. Jon Clark has also been a willing and helpful participant in the Government' case against David G. s Sherman and has provided significant assistance to the Government' investigation. s In light of these circumstances, case law, and the plain wording of Section 3553(a), a sentence of probation would fully satisfy the objectives of Section 3553(a). Such a sentence would further Congress' goal of imposing sentences that are s

-2-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 3 of 18

proportionate to the offense and tailored to the defendant and circumstances of each case. We respectfully urge this Court to choose a sentence of probation for Mr. Clark. II. BACKGROUND

Between May 1994 and June 30, 2000, Mr. Clark worked for Vari-L Company, Inc. (" Vari-L" in the respective positions of Controller and Principal Accounting Officer, ) Assistant Treasurer, Vice President of Finance, and Chief Financial Officer. He was appointed Chief Financial Officer in 1998. In his various positions, Mr. Clark' duties included: (1) maintaining banking and s investor relationships; (2) supervising the controller and accounting department employees; (3) overseeing the accounting functions and the maintenance of the financial books and records of Vari-L; and (4) reviewing and signing the Quarterly Report Forms 10-QSB and Annual Report Forms 10-KSB of Vari-L, which were filed with the SEC as required under Section 13 or 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Four persons were charged in connection with the criminal investigation of VariL: David G. Sherman, Vari-L' President and Chief Executive Officer; Sarah E. Hume, s Vari-L' Controller; Joseph H. Kiser, Chairman of the Board of Vari-L; and Mr. Clark. s From January 1997 through March 1999, certain personnel of Vari-L recorded two types of improper revenue on Vari-L' corporate books and records: (1) Ship in s Place (" SIP" and (2) Bill in Place (" ), BIP" Clark Plea Agreement and Statement of ). Facts (" Clark Plea" p. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Vari-L personnel used these ), two methods of recording revenue to assist in their management of earnings, and to

-3-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 4 of 18

achieve certain fraudulent earnings levels . Id at pp. 5-6. Mr. Sherman, in consultation with and at the direction of Mr. Kiser, determined what the SIP number should be for any given quarter, based upon the shortfall between Vari-L' actual revenue and the s projected earnings Mr. Sherman and Mr. Kiser sought to reach. Sherman Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts (" Sherman Plea" p. 8, attached hereto as Exhibit ), B. Once the necessary SIP number had been determined by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Kiser, Mr. Sherman would direct Ms. Hume to create invoices and accounting entries to support the SIP number, and Ms. Hume would then prepare the necessary documents. Id. Toward the end of 1997, Ms. Hume advised Mr. Sherman of her preliminary review of revenue for that year, which already included the inappropriate SIP revenue. Id. After consultation with and at the direction of Mr. Kiser, Mr. Sherman advised Ms. Hume that the revenue calculated was insufficient to meet the revenue goal, and that she needed to " find"approximately $1.3 million to claim for 1997. Id. at pp. 8-9. Mr. Sherman told Ms. Hume that he did not care how she came up with the $1.3 million. Id. at p. 9. In response to Mr. Sherman' and Mr. Kiser' request, Ms. Hume created and s s recorded $1.3 million in BIP revenue, a fabricated amount unconnected with any legitimate order actually received by Vari-L. Id. Upon discovery of this fraudulent recording by Vari-L' outside auditors, Mr. s Sherman and Ms. Hume met with the auditors to convince them not to notify the SEC or Vari-L' board of directors, promising that the BIP revenue would be removed from s Vari-L' books shortly, and that Vari-L would not claim BIP or SIP revenue in the future. s

-4-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 5 of 18

Id. Vari-L continued to record BIP revenue, however, through 1998, and SIP revenue until the third quarter of 1998. Id. In March of 1998, Ms. Hume told Mr. Clark that she had made an error in recording SIP revenue on the books of Vari-L, and that she was under orders not to talk to anyone about it. Clark Plea, pp. 6-7. After this revelation by Ms. Hume, from April through July of 1998 Mr. Clark had discussions with an accounting employee responsible for collecting accounts receivable, who told him that Ms. Hume had indeed recorded, and was continuing to record, SIP revenue on the books of Vari-L. Id. at p. 7. After Mr. Clark' discovery of these fraudulent recordings, Mr. Sherman directed Ms. s Hume and Mr. Clark to remove the fraudulent BIP revenue on the books of Vari-L without disclosing the falsity of the revenue to the SEC or the public. Sherman Plea, p. 9. Thereafter, in January of 1999, Mr. Clark learned from Ms. Hume that she made the accounting entries to remove the BIP revenue from Vari-L' books. Clark Plea, p. 7. Mr. s Clark, however, did not disclose what he knew about Mr. Kiser' Mr. Sherman' or Ms. s, s Hume' false recordings of the revenue to the SEC or the public at that time. Id. s On September 27, 2001, the SEC filed a Complaint for Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against Mr. Sherman, Ms. Hume, and Mr. Clark. That same day, Mr. Clark filed a Consent, agreeing and stipulating to the entry of the proposed Final Judgment, which included a civil penalty of $50,000 and disgorgement of his profits in the amount of $143,754.48 plus interest amounting to $22,877.39. Consent of

Defendant Jon L. Clark, p. 4, attached hereto as Exhibit C. Mr. Clark also consented to an order prohibiting him from acting as an officer or director of any public company.

-5-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 6 of 18

Amended Final Judgment as to Defendant Jon L. Clark p. 6, attached hereto as Exhibit D. On September 27, 2001, the SEC also issued an Order Instituting Cease and Desist Proceedings concerning Mr. Kiser, pursuant to which Mr. Kiser paid disgorgement of $58,000 plus interest of $4,969. Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order (" Kiser SEC Cease-and-Desist" p. 4, attached hereto as Exhibit E. ), On July 19, 2002, Ms. Hume filed her Consent to a Final Judgment. Consent of Defendant Sarah E. Hume, attached hereto as Exhibit F. The Final Judgment did not include any prohibition on acting as an officer or director of a public company, and Ms. Hume was not assessed any civil penalty nor was she required to disgorge any profits. Final Judgment as to Defendant Sarah E. Hume (" Hume SEC Final Judgment" ), attached hereto as Exhibit G. Mr. Sherman subsequently filed his consent on

September 25, 2003. Consent of Defendant David G. Sherman, attached hereto as Exhibit H. Despite agreeing to liability for disgorgement plus interest of $2,269,916, representing the profits gained as a result of his fraudulent conduct, Mr. Sherman consented to payment of only $85,000. Final Judgment as to Defendant David G. Sherman (" Sherman SEC Final Judgment" p. 5, attached hereto as Exhibit I. He was ), not assessed any civil penalty. Id. at p. 7. III. A SENTENCE OF PROBATION IS APPROPRIATE

The United States Sentencing Guidelines are no longer mandatory to determine an appropriate sentence. Rather, the United States Supreme Court has held that a

-6-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 7 of 18

sentencing court should merely consult the Guidelines while imposing a sentence consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756-65 (2005). Mr. Clark submits that a downward departure or variance from the Guidelines sentence is appropriate under the circumstances. Specifically, Mr. Clark asks the Court to impose probation. Mr. Clark is eligible under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a) to be sentenced to a term of probation. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(1), the authorized term of

probation for this offense is not less than one year, and not more than five years. A. A Downward Departure Under the Guidelines is Appropriate

In 2004, the parties agreed that the final offense level, before any departure, would be fifteen, corresponding to a sentence of 18-24 months. We request that the court depart downward seven levels, and impose a sentence of probation. 1. Mr. Clark' Substantial Assistance to the United States s Government in its Investigation and Prosecution of Mr. Sherman Warrants a Downward Departure

Jon Clark' substantial and consistent assistance to the United States s Government in its investigation of Mr. Sherman was critical to the successful prosecution of the Government' case. s In cases where a defendant has provided

substantial assistance, a lower sentence is appropriate " than would otherwise be imposed, including a sentence that is lower than that established by statute as a minimum sentence, to take into account a defendant' substantial assistance in the s investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense." 28 U.S.C. §994(n). Guideline Section 5K1.1 allows a sentencing court to depart from the Guidelines " [u]pon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided

-7-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 8 of 18

substantial assistance."See also U.S. v. Maldonado-Acosta, 210 F.3d 1182 (10th Cir. 2000) (a downward sentencing departure for substantial assistance to the government may be granted only upon motion by the government). Mr. Clark' plea agreement s contemplated the filing of such a " substantial assistance"motion if Mr. Clark cooperated with the government. Clark Plea ¶ (C)(5)(b). Because the government has filed the necessary motion, Mr. Clark respectfully requests that the Court depart downward, under advisory guideline Section 5K1.1 for government assistance.1 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e) is the statutory authority for Section 5K1.1. The guidelines do not quantify the level of appropriate departure for this factor. Instead, the policy statement to Section 5K1.1 states that the Court should consider the following factors: (1) the significance and usefulness of the defendant' s assistance, taking into consideration the government' s evaluation of the assistance rendered; (2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant; (3) the nature and extent of the defendant' assistance; (4) any injury suffered, or any danger s or risk of injury to the defendant or his family resulting from his assistance; and (5) the timeliness of the defendant' s assistance. U.S.S.G. Section 5K1.1(a). The Commentary to Section 5K1.1 makes it clear that " [t]he nature, extent and significance of assistance can involve a broad spectrum of conduct that must be evaluated by the court on an individual basis. Latitude is, therefore,

1

The Application Notes accompanying Guidelines Section 5K1.1 state " the sentencing reduction for assistance to authorities shall be considered independently of any reduction for acceptance of responsibility." n. 2. Thus, the reduction for acceptance of responsibility already agreed to in the plea agreement should not have any bearing on the Court' s analysis regarding the departure granted for assisting the government.

-8-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 9 of 18

afforded the sentencing judge to reduce a sentence based upon variable relevant factors, including those listed above."Id. cmt. background. Once a motion for departure based upon cooperation is made, consequently, it remains within the discretion of this Court to determine the extent of the departure. See United States v. Doe, 398 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2005) (defendant' assistance should be fully considered by a district s court at sentencing even if that assistance is not presented to the court in the form of a Section 5K1.1 motion); see also United States v. Easterling, (10th Cir. 1990)

(Sentencing Guidelines do not require downward adjustment for cooperation, but cooperation may be considered by the court, in its discretion, as a mitigating sentencing factor) (emphasis added). As a matter of law, the limit of the Court' discretion under s Section 5K1.1 is whether the sentence imposed is reasonable. United States v. Belvett, No. 6:04-CR-199ORL-31DAB, 2005 WL 852649, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4659 (M. D. Fla. March 17, 2005); see also United States v. Johnson, 393 F.3d 466, 470 (4th Cir. 2004) (there is no limit how low a district court can depart as long as the extent of the departure is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e)). For almost three years, Mr. Clark has assisted in the investigation and prosecution of Mr. Sherman, whose case arose from the same circumstances underlying the government' case against Mr. Clark. Mr. Clark' assistance was truthful, s s timely, and complete. He immediately told the government everything he knew about the criminal conduct and the other individuals involved, and he willingly gave all the assistance he was capable of giving. Mr. Clark provided extensive information not previously known to the Government, and substantially furthered its investigation. As

-9-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 10 of 18

the Government' Motion for Downward Departure for Substantial Assistance states, s Mr. Clark' " s cooperation was both important and instrumental in obtaining an indictment of David Sherman." Government' Motion for Downward Departure for Substantial s Assistance, p. 3. Mr. Clark, moreover, immediately agreed to assist the government. He was one of the first individuals to make the decision to cooperate, and his early cooperation enabled the Government to discover incidents and witnesses that were not previously s known. Id., pp. 2-3. Throughout the government' investigation, Mr. Clark readily offered his testimony and provided information about the wrongdoing involved. He was at all times truthful and complete in his interviews, and proved reliable with all the information he provided. Mr. Clark went to every extent necessary to help the government when it needed his assistance. He attended every interview requested, and he willingly and voluntarily provided all information he had regarding the wrongdoing at issue. Overall, Mr. Clark has done everything possible to assist the government and provide the information needed. All of these circumstances combined suggest that the Court should grant a significant downward departure for government assistance. 2. A Departure is Necessary to Achieve Parity and Consistency Between Mr. Clark and His Co-Defendants

The violations Mr. Clark committed are a marked deviation from an otherwise honest and dignified career. Jon Clark is a decent, benevolent, honorable, and ethical person. Mr. Clark' good character is evidenced in the manner he has handled himself s throughout these proceedings. He was the first defendant in the SEC case to take responsibility and agree to pay restitution to those who were injured by his actions. In

-10-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 11 of 18

addition to the civil penalty imposed, Mr. Clark agreed to disgorge all of his profits from the illegal transaction, totaling $167,835.00, and further, paid an additional $11,066.25 to the settlement fund for the damaged shareholders. Letter Re: Vari-L Litigation ­ Settlement Contributions of Individual Defendants (" Settlement Letter" attached hereto ), as Exhibit J. Overall, Mr. Clark contributed a total of $178,901.25 to the settlement fund, and was assessed a $50,000.00 civil money penalty. To make these payments, Mr. Clark was forced to liquidate an IRA, incurring early withdrawal penalties and Federal and State Income Tax, at a personal cost of approximately $300,000.00. Conversely, Mr. Clark' co-defendants, who organized and directed the false s accounting scheme, paid less, or nothing at all. Ms. Hume was not ordered to pay anything, Mr. Sherman was ordered to pay $21,066.25 as an individual contribution and $85,000.00 in his disgorgement settlement with the SEC, and Mr. Kiser was ordered to pay $11,066.25 as an individual contribution and $62,969.00 as disgorgement in his SEC stipulation. Id.; Kiser SEC Cease-and-Desist, Exhibit E at p. 4; Hume SEC Final Judgment, Exhibit G; Sherman SEC Final Judgment, Exhibit H. Combining the funds contributed by all four individuals, Mr. Clark' contribution amounts to almost 50% of the s total settlement fund to be disbursed to the damaged shareholders. Mr. Clark is also potentially subject to a significantly higher sentence than his codefendants. Mr. Clark' plea agreement resulted with an offense level of 15. On s

September 1, 2006, Mr. Kiser also entered into a plea agreement with the government, with a resulting offense level of 4. Kiser Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts

Relevant to Sentencing (" Kiser Plea" p. 7, attached hereto as Exhibit K. On April 29, ),

-11-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 12 of 18

2004, Ms. Hume entered into a plea agreement subjecting her to a resulting offense level of 13. Hume Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing (" Hume Plea" p. 11, attached hereto as Exhibit L. ), Mr. Clark' current offense level of 15, corresponding to a 18-24 month sentence, s is not proportional in relation to his co-defendants. Mr. Clark' involvement was the s most passive relative to Mr. Sherman, Mr. Kiser and Ms. Hume. However, Mr. Kiser

and Ms. Hume are each subject to a sentencing guideline range of 0-6 and 12-18 months respectively. Mr. Clark acted illegally when he failed to disclose the falsity of the revenue to the SEC or the public. Unlike Mr. Sherman, Mr. Kiser and Ms. Hume, however, Mr. Clark was not an active participant in the creation or implementation of the fraudulent reporting scheme. Mr. Clark did not work together with Mr. Kiser or Mr. Sherman to devise the means to create fraudulent revenue to make up for the shortfall between Vari-L' actual revenue and the projected earnings. See Sherman Plea, p. 8. s Moreover, Mr. Clark, unlike Ms. Hume, did not create false BIP revenue for Vari-L' s reports. See id. Mr. Clark' crime was not disclosing the acts of Mr. Kiser, Mr. s

Sherman and Ms. Hume when he became aware of them. Despite the fact Mr. Kiser and Ms. Hume were significantly more active in the illegal scheme, Mr. Clark faces a higher sentence range. It would be unjust not to grant a downward departure for Mr. Clark to make his offense level at least consistent with Mr. Kiser and Ms. Hume. Both Mr. Kiser and Ms. Hume were key players in the scheme from the beginning of its implementation, while Mr. Clark was not. Furthermore, because Mr. Clark immediately took responsibility for

-12-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 13 of 18

his actions and contributed the largest amount of funds to those injured, it would be disproportionate to punish him more harshly than Mr. Kiser, who denied blame for several years and did not supply comparable monetary restitution to the shareholders, and Ms. Hume, who did not supply any monetary restitution at all. s In Booker, both majorities reiterated the Commission' priority of proportionality and parity in sentencing. 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Although Mr. Clark occupied a position of corporate leadership within Vari-L, he was not at the forefront of this scheme. Rather, it was masterminded by Mr. Sherman and Mr. Kiser and carried out by Ms. Hume. Considering his relatively minimal role, it would be unjust to punish Mr. Clark more harshly than his co-defendants. B. A Departure is Necessary to Achieve Parity and Consistency Between Mr. Clark and His Co-Defendants

The departure factors considered by the Commission are not the exclusive factors in a court' sentencing analysis. Instead, the Sentencing Guidelines are merely s advisory. United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). Thus, in considering a In

sentence, the Court can, and should, consider all relevant matters of fact and law.

addition to the Guidelines Analysis above, key factors this Court should consider are: (1) the history and characteristics of Mr. Clark; and (2) the need to impose a sentence as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) that: (a) reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, and provides just punishment; (b) affords adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct; (c) protects the public from further crimes of the defendant; and (d) provides Mr. Clark with needed correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

-13-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 14 of 18

1.

The History and Character of Mr. Clark Favor a Sentence of Probation

Outside of these circumstances, Mr. Clark has an otherwise spotless employment record. He is a good man, a loving and giving husband, father and friend. He is honest, respectable, and clearly remorseful and apologetic for his actions. As evidenced in the letters sent by family and friends included with the Presentence Report, this offense is inconsistent with Mr. Clark' history and general character. s Further evidence of Mr. Clark' trustworthy character is his immediate s acceptance of responsibility upon commencement of these proceedings. He was

contrite from the beginning, and immediately sought to remedy the situation as best he could by agreeing to assist the government, disgorge his profits, and contribute to the shareholder' settlement fund. On balance, Mr. Clark' history of good standing and s s reputation in conjunction with the quality character he has portrayed throughout this criminal case should favor a sentence of probation, not imprisonment. 2. The Factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2) Favor Probation

Section 3553(a)(2) focuses on the need for the sentence imposed to (a) reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense, (b) afford adequate deterrence for others in the community, (c) protect the public from further crimes committed by the defendant, and (e) provide defendants with needed correctional treatment in the most effective manner. In the plea agreement reached between the government and Mr. Clark, he entered a plea of guilty to a Class D felony of filing a false statement in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(a); 78(ff), and 17 C.F.R. §§ 240.12b-20, 240.13a-1 and 240.13b2-2. See

-14-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 15 of 18

18 U.S.C. 3559(a)(4). This Class D felony is punishable by imprisonment of not more than 10 years and a fine of not more than $1,000,000.2 However, in the circumstances of this case, a sentence of probation will satisfy the policies expressed in Section 3553(a)(2). First, the probation period will not be the only punishment Mr. Clark will have received for this offense. The collateral damage to his reputation, his career, and his family is part of his punishment as well. Mr. Clark has experienced chastisement personally, professionally, socially, and financially as a result of his misconduct. He and his family have suffered substantially because of the events that occurred at Vari-L, and he and his family will continue to suffer. Such public

humiliation and the resulting damage to his professional reputation and career afford adequate deterrence for others in the corporate community. Mr. Clark, furthermore, will never be a criminal threat to society, and he needs no further " correctional treatment." Taking all of his circumstances into account, a sentence of probation should serve the need to deter not only this defendant, but possible future corporate actors as well. IV. CONCLUSION

Mr. Clark is eligible under 18 U.S.C. § 3561(a)(1) to be sentenced to a term of probation. If the Court departs downward, under advisory guideline Section 5K1.1 for government assistance, seven levels, it will further the several goals of sentencing. First, it will promote and encourage defendants to provide assistance to the
2

By amendments enacted in July 2002, the statutory maximum penalty was increased to not more than 20 years imprisonment and not more than a $5,000,000 fine, or both. However, due to ex post facto considerations, the government believed the applicable penalties for this case are as stated above. Clark Plea, p. 3.

-15-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 16 of 18

government. Second, it will achieve parity and consistency between Mr. Clark and his co-defendants. Third, it will recognize the specific circumstances of the defendant, and impose a sentence that adequately punishes Mr. Clark' misconduct. s A downward departure of seven levels places Mr. Clark in zone A of the sentencing table, thus rendering him eligible for probation under the advisory guideline analysis at Section 5B1.1(a)(1). We respectfully request that the court impose what it deems to be an adequate probationary period with conditions it considers necessary. Dated: November 21, 2006. Respectfully submitted, s/ David W. Stark David W. Stark FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203-4532 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (303) 607-3500 Facsimile: (303) 307-3600 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT JON L. CLARK

-16-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 17 of 18

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 21st day of November, 2006 I electronically filed the foregoing MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING with the Clark of the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following e-mail addresses:

Robert E. Mydans E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for the Government Patricia Davies E-mail: [email protected] Attorney for the Government A copy of this Motion was e-mailed to: Grant Hanson U.S. Probation Department [email protected]

s/ Michelle Spadavecchia MICHELLE SPADAVECCHIA Legal Administrative Assistant FAEGRE & BENSON LLP 3200 Wells Fargo Center 1700 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203-4532 E-mail: [email protected] Telephone: (303) 607-3500 Facsimile: (303) 307-3600

-17-

Case 1:04-cr-00088-REB

Document 37

Filed 11/21/2006

Page 18 of 18

EXHIBIT LIST A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L. Clark Plea Agreement and Statement Of Facts Sherman Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Consent of Defendant Jon L. Clark Amended Final Judgment as to Defendant Jon L. Clark Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings and Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Consent of Defendant Sarah E. Hume Final Judgment as to Defendant Sarah E. Hume Consent of Defendant David G. Sherman Final Judgment as to Defendant David G. Sherman Letter Re: Vari-L Litigation ­ Settlement Contributions of Individual Defendants Kiser Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing Hume Plea Agreement and Statement of Facts Relevant to Sentencing

-18-