Sree Re O48 out UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT For the OHND, Eastern Divison INVOICE 2308 MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: ———} Harry Marantides George J Staiduhar, RPR, CM, FCRR Harry Marantides Federal Court Reporter [email protected] 801 W. Superior Ave., Suite 7-185 Strongsville, OH Cleveland, OH 44113 (440) 539-3364 (216) 357-7128 [email protected] X CRIMINAL __ CIVIL 05-18-2022 05-18-2022 In the matter of: 1:20CR424, U SAv Margaret Cole Transcript of proceedings of sentencing on May 19th, 2022 before Judge James S. Gwin, ace ORIGINAL, 48° COPY 2% COPY TOTAL PAGES | PRICE [SUBTOTAL| PAGES | PRICE |SUBTOTAL| PAGES | PRICE [sUBTOTAL| CHARGES Ordinary 3.65 0.80) 0.60 14-Day 425 0.90) 0.60 Expedited 485 0.90 0.60 3-Day 5.45 1.05 0.75 Daily a5[ 6.05] 914.25 1.20 0.90 514.26) Hourly 7.25 1.20 0.90 Realtime 3.05 Mise. Misc. Charges| Subtotal 514.25) Less Discount for Late Delivery ‘Tax (If Applicable) Less Amount of Deposit Total Refund Total Due 514.25 ‘ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Full price may be charged only if the transcript is delivered within the as order for expedited transcript is not completed and delivered within (7) calendar days delivery rate, and if not completed and delivered within 14 days, payment would be At CERTIFICATION [Zs | certify that the transcript fees chazged and page format used comply with fhe requiremer the Judicial a the Unite 4 “2 Tao OTR IHN UL Gest fesuneawi jayne) SOURTREPORTER "COURT REPORTER SUPERVISOR Ionrinnwe Wne 10 & 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20CR424 a‘APPEARANCES : On behalf of the Government: OFFICE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY BY: CHELSEA S. RICE, AUSA 801 W. Superior Avenue, Suite 400 © nIinnu ek wne , OH 44113 and UNTIED STATES DEPARIMENT OF JUSTICE JASON M, MANNING - Criminal Division Suite 600 1400 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 2005 10 1 On behalf of the Defendant: 12 JUSTIN J. ROBERTS, ESQ. Suite 1300 13 600 Superior Avenue Cleveland, OH 44114 14 15 ERE, WRIST, MORRIS & ARTHUR ELMIND W. SEARBY, ESQ. 16 Suite 500 17 950 Main Avenue 18 Cleveland, OH 44113 OS 20 21 22 23 24©noninn ek wvne 10 & 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 PROCEEDINGS THE COURT: We are here today on 200R-424 United States versus Margaret Cole. ‘The case is here today for sentencing. In this case, the Court finds the Defendant guilty of Count 11, in which she is charged with conspiring to defraud the United States in violation of 18 United States Code, Section 371. ‘The Court additionally finds her guilty of Count 13, in which she is charged with having made a false statement to the Polish Central Authority in violation of 42 U.S.C., Section 944. Ms. Cole, have you received a copy of the ppresentence report? THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. ‘HE COURT: And have you gone through each paragraph of that report with your attomeys? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. THE COURT: After going through the report with your attorneys, do you believe there is any mistakes in the report, or do you raise any objection to any of the report paragraphs? ‘THE DEFENDANT: No. THE COURT: And I would note counsel raised certain objections to certain paragraphs, but are thereoonInne owner 10 i 14 16 by | 18 19 20 21 24 any additional objections to the report? HE DEFENDANT: I don't know what your additional —- MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, if I might assist, Ms. Cole would incorporate by reference the cbjections that are made and the points made in her sentencing memorandum, which was filed under seal with the Court and also with the addendum to the PSR, in the addendum to the PSR. I€ the Court would allow it, counsel would make several points to supplement what's stated there. THE COURT: Have you provided Government counsel with a copy of the supplemental argument? MR. SEARBY: No, your Honor. I believe it is subsumed in the arguments between the parties, and it xesponds, in part, to certain statements made in the Government's sentencing memorancum and to items filed by the Government at approximately 4:00 p.m. yesterday afternoon. HE COURT: Okay. Well, let's -- the objections that I'm aware of, we will go through then sequentially, and you can make argument, and the Government can respond on those. ‘The first, as much as I can tell, is the objection to the probation officer's recommendation that there be an offense Guideline addition because ito©oaIinn ek wne involved overseas or sophisticated means, which are two separate acts made by the Government. Let me press the Government to -- on the second portion of the Government's argument on that and on the sophisticated means with regard to Ms. Cole's conduct, is there any -- what's the best argument you have regarding sophisticated means? MR. MANNING: Yes, your Honor, I can address that. I will just note primarily that our primary argument -— THE COURT: I understood that. MR. KRAMER: -- on sophisticated means, the best argument is that the conspiracy was not a garden variety criminal scheme, that among sophisticated means employed by the conspirators were a plan to have Cole and clients change their flights to make sure that they did not cross state lines with the child. So they would fly directly from Burope into ‘Texas and then handing off the child with the assistance of legal documents notarized to effect the transfer of custody. And before they even got to that situation, the scheme required the conspirators led by the Defendant Margaret Cole to press her Poland clients to conceal to Polish authorities that they had this plan in place too©onIinne wne 10 BRB 14 16 Bie 18 19 20 8 24 carry out an adoption under foreign law, to obtain visas through the U.S. Enbassy. So this was a complicated scheme that could only be carried out by an adoption agency and the person that led it. THE COURT: Help me with understanding: What's the difference between flying directly to Teas and/or flying to Utah and putting the child on a plane firom Utah to Texas, how does that became sophisticated? Is there sane inmigration or other check that would have been present in Utah that would not otherwise be present in Texas? MR. MANNING: Had the child crossed state lines within the United States, it would have created additional responsibilities to try to complete the proceedings under Texas state law is our understanding, and your Honor —- THE COURT: If the child had landed in Utah and immediately switched to separate plane to Texas, would there have been any state adoption or state custody proceedings in Utah? MR. MANNING: Yes. I believe that would have been treated as a different situation because the child would have been relocated, rehomed to Texas. Broadly speaking, your Honor, we understand this is not the type of sophisticated means that involves mitiple©momIinn es wne 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 24 levels of shell companies or forgeries. It is not sophisticated means of that nature. Nevertheless, for the reasons we stated we think it applies and the substantial conduct overseas, which is the other prong of that adjustment beyond that — THE COURT: Mr. Searby, do you have any argument on the sophisticated means position the Government takes? MR. SEARBY: Briefly, your Honor. Would it be allowable to the Court that I remove my mask? THE COURT: Yes, as long as you keep same distance from everybody. MR. SEARBY: Certainly. The counts of conviction of the Government's indictment is a failure to disclose, a failure to disclose and transfer the child to various Government authorities. Remaining silent is not sophisticated, and we also recited a case involving the rejection by the Court of Appeals of an enhancement for sophisticated means in connection with a tax retum, and the rejection by the Court that filing a false tax returm amounts to In the 302 report of interview of the Poland Client, to my recollection, it is clear that the decision to change flights was a decision made by Poland clients.© oIrIinu ek wd eB 10 1 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 2 ‘There may have been an indication from Ms. Parris they should do it, but the Court puts its finger on the illogic of this theory that the child would have crossed state lines, whether they flew to Utah directly or Texas and then Utah. In addition, I would note for the Court, as Ms. Parris' agreement do not include an enhancement for sophisticated means, so it asks the question are we doing it here? In fact, Ms. Parris was certainly more involved with the transfer of the child to her own relative. She was present in Texas. My client was not. My client's involvement really ended after she was asked to help by the Poland clients develop options, and she was not involved in the specific travel logistics. THE COURT: Okay. I am going to find that the sophisticated means provision doesn't apply in this case. You raise cbjection with regard to the other portion of 2B1.1 with regard to whether or not the -- a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States. What's kind of the best argument on that? She is here, but is that particularly important, the fact that she is here?o©owinu ek wn) Wasn't the whole scheme set up to bring a foreign-born child to the United States. Wasn't her role of business centered around the idea of international adoptions? MR. SEARBY: Yes, your Honor. This case did involve an international adoption as the Court knows from Poland. However, on this point, when you look at the Government's sentencing memorandum, Ms. Cole and the Government agree that the purpose of the enhancement is where Defendants locate conduct overseas in order to THE COURT: I am not sure —- do you have the Guidelines right in front of you? Take a hook at 2B1.1(b) (10). So xead along with me. "Zé" -- and then subparagraph (a), are you with me? MR. SEARBY: Sorry, your Honor. I brought the big one. MR. MANNING: I believe that's page 84. MR. SEARBY: I am with you, your Honor. THE COURT: ‘In subparagraph (a), "the Defendant relocated or participated in relocating a fraudulent scheme to another jurisdiction to evade law enforcement or regulatory officials," then colon, "a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme was committed from outside the United States," colon again or -- soo©onInn eae wWde 10 b 4 16 vq 18 19 20 8 24 10 doesn't that suggest that (b) is alternative to (a) and that it is not a requirement that there be -- that there be a joining of the relocation possibility with the substantial part of the scheme being outside the United States? ‘They are alternatives, right, (a), ), and (C), but you don't need (a) to have an application of &). MR. SEARBY: Well, your Honor, I would agree with the Court that part (b) indicates that locating an operation overseas -- THE COURT: But it doesn't say that, it doesn't say "locating." It says a "fraudulent part of the scheme was committed outside the United States." MR. SEARBY: I am reading the example it gives. For exemple, "in a telemarketing scheme located in the main office of the schame in one jurisdiction but locating soliciting operations in another jurisdiction ordinarily indicates THE COURT: Yeah, but —- and let me ask the Government to chime in as well -- I think perhaps you misread the Guideline. Under (b) (10), are there not three altemative independent ways (b) (10) can be violated or be applicable, one where there is anoo wnn es wv Pe 10 BEB 14 16 7 18 1g 20 21 24 pbs intentional relocation, a second one where there is a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme comnitted outside the United States, or three, the offense Do you have a position? Am I missing that MR. MANNING: Your Honor, the Government's position is as the Court is reading that correctly. Exactly as the Court has stated, these are three independent grounds for the enhancement to apply, and the independent ground upon which the Government is relying is the prong in (b), which requires that a substantial part of the scheme be camitted from outside the United States. And the appellate case law that the Government cites the Williams case, the Omo case, all hold that when the Court is evaluating the conduct, it is not merely a conduct of the Defendant but the conduct of the entire conspiracy. For the reasons we set forth in our submission, as the Court has already put its finger on, not only was a substantial part of the conduct here overseas, the conduct overseas was integral. You couldn't have the scheme without EAC's clients being in Poland seeking to adopt Polish children, under Polish© onIinn eke wne 10 20 8 24 23 law, through Polish courts, cbtaining visas fram the U.S. Embassy in Poland and then for the Defendant Margaret Cole to tell false statements to the Polish Central Authority when they were -- THE COURT: Isn't that what the Williams case says? MR. SEARBY: Um, your Honor, it does but a couple points: First of all, I agree with the Court that these are stated in the altemative, but I believe if the Court goes back to the original 1998 Sentencing Commission Guidelines policy statements and official commentary that we cite, that was the original purpose underlying where a substantial amount of the conduct is overseas, but let's talk about really the point whether a substantial amount of the conduct, it is not whether there is conduct overseas; it is whether there is a substantial amount was overseas. Really, the gravamen of the offense here is what transpires after they leave Poland. In fact, if you xead the FBI 302 report of interview of Poland clients, they make it clear they did not have their minds made up until they were flying hare. So the offenses for which Ms. Cole has pled guilty involve reporting violations. None of the chargedoon we wne 10 & 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 2 Defendants here ever left the United States in connection with this offense. And the only overt act in the indictment that was committed overseas is a reference to an unindicted co-conspirator assisting the Poland clients That's the only act. Then you again get into the FRI 302 and take out the lawyer's spin and see what Poland clients said actually happened, it is not clear that there was any specific assistance as to cbtaining the visa and clear that the Poland clients who were never charged as being participants in this scheme were wholly responsible for the address to which they intended to travel with the child when they left. THE COURT: Okay. I will overrule the cbjection. I think that under 2B1.1(b) (10), there is three alternative ways that the Guideline could play into this, and the second of those is when there is a substantial part of the fraudulent scheme that was comnitted from outside the United States, and in this case, the whole background of the scheme was to perpetrate a fraud on the Polish authorities and perpetrate a fraud on the United States authorities with regard to the Polish adoption.© owinn eae wVne 10 BE 4 14 So I find that (b) (10) applies, and I will overrule your cbjection as to that. Your second objection, I believe, is -- ceals with vulnerable victim, two-level increase. what's the best argument on that? I mean, this child -- do you ceny that the child herself was a victim? MR. SEARBY: She certainly was a victim, your Honor, and it is a terrible —- THE COURT: Do you believe she was vulnerable? MR. SEARBY: Within the definition of the Guidelines, she was vulnerable, and that the Guidelines indicate that age, a child is a vulnerable victim. We are not arguing that. What we are arguing is that the crime by which she was victimized is not the crime for which my client is here today. And I think that the important point that the Government cbscures in its memorandum goes to a legal point, and that's the lack of proximate causation. ‘The Guideline applies where the offense of conviction causes han to a vulnerable victim. THE COURT: Well, in this case, did -- do the regulations require an earlier hare, basically a certification of the adopting parent? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, the regulations tooonInne wWne adopt a child, if that's the question, would require a home study and for the child to be vetted. THE COURT: Was there any home study done of the Parris location? MR. SEARBY: Yes, your Honor, and this is exactly where I was headed. ‘There is a significant intervening event, and that is before the crime is committed against the child in the United States. The Parris relatives are vetted by the state. THE COURT: And that's part of the fraud scheme. They get the adoption in February of '16, xight? MR. SEARBY: Well, your Honor, I don't agree that it is a fraud. I think to the issue of this emhancarent —- THE COURT: Didn't your client basically represent Poland and to the United States that -- she failed to indicate to them that the adoption had taken place before they cammmicated with her. MR. SEARBY: I believe it was the opposite, your Honor, that she reported the dissolution of the foreign adoption, and she reported to the COA, the Council on Accreditation, that the adoption was in process when I believe the adoption was already final under state law.© OInne Wde 10 & 4 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 16 But the point I want to go to, which is not in the Goverment's memorandum and there are statements in the Government's memorandum that became misleading to the Court when this fact is admitted is the fact that the crime occurred after the Parris relatives had a hare study, were vetted by the state, and were approved to adopt the child under state law, and it is after that point in August of 2016 when the crime against the child occurred. So we can ask ourselves if the crime had not ccourred in August, but the Parris relative father three would my client still be responsible as, you know, for harm to a vulnerable victim, and I think the answer is no, and the answer is still no in August '16 because there is a significant intervening event. THE COURT: Is the Texas juvenile court, if Texas is going to approve the placament with the Parris family, does that end any violation of failing to report to the Polish authorities where the child was actually going to go just simply because same state court makes a decision that it is ckay to place with the Parris family? MR. SEARBY: I don't think it does, and the issue of reporting violations, in fact, my client has© OI nwne wd 10 i 14 16 17 18 19 21 24 17 pled guilty to a reporting violation, which occurred after the adoption was finalized. But this particular emhancement is focused on the crime of conviction causing harm to the child, and the Government's theory of the case was that because the child was transferred without being vetted the hanm occurred. ‘The other fact I would want the Court to know is that in July of 2015 when the child was transferred to the Parris relatives at the airport in Texas, at that point, EAC as far as my Client knew had ordered a hare study on the Parris relatives. As rightly pointed out in the PSR, that home study was delayed at the advice of counsel, but that's true, the full situation that cccurred. THE COURT: On this vulnerable victim, does the Government have an argument on that? MR. MANNING: Can you repeat the question, your Honor? THE COURT: Qn the vulnerable victim, it sounds like counsel for Ms. Cole is arguing that she couldn't have been a vulnerable victim. ‘the state of Texas otherwise approved the placement with the Parris family. MR. MANNING: Yes, your Honor. It is the Government's position that the actions of the state of© oOInn ek wd eB 10 Bb 4 16 i 18 19 20 23 24 23 18 ‘Texas in February 2016 are essentially irrelevant to Ms. Cole's culpability to the charged crimes and irrelevant to the application of this enhancement. We believe the enhancement applies because in the Government's view the gravamen of this conduct is the conspiracy led by Margaret Cole and her co-conspirators in July of 2015 to direct their client to transfer a vulnereble Polish orphan into a hame that was completely unvetted and, therefore, was dangerous, which Cole knew, and the child would never have been placed in the home if not for the direction of Cole as your Honor put its finger on. There was no hame study done at the time. Poland clients had even sent an e-mail to Margaret Cole while they were still in Poland saying, has this family cone their home stuly, to which Margaret Cole never xesponded. She caused the child to be placed into that home. If there had been a home sty, it would have umoovered that one of the parents had a domestic violence record, If the Polish authorities knew that information, the Polish authorities, it is our understanding, would not have allowed that child to go into that han. And the Polish authorities also would not have allowed the child to be split from the child'soor ann ek wn eB 10 1 4 16 7 19 20 21 23 24 19 sibling, and the Polish authorities describe that in detail in their victim statement to the Court. And so but for Margaret Cole's conduct, the child never goes in the ham. The fact that Texas in February of 2016 thought this was ckay does not change the fact that Cole is a responsible place in a dangerous home and worked out tragically as we know. For those reasons, we believe the echancanent applies. ‘Thank you. MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, may I quickly respond to one point? THE COURT: In the FBI report doesn't the Utah couple, aren't they quite clear that they assumed or been led to believe that the Texas couple, the Parris couple had already received approval for the adoption? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, my recollection is they weren't clear on that point, whether they had an understanding of hare study, but I am going by memory, your Honor. I do want to respond to my colleague's point though; That Ms. Cole caused the child to be placed with the Texas family, and I think it is important to remeber, first of all, they were given a list ofOO 0 og wo ho & 10 i 4 16 bf 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 20 Second of all -- THE COURT: ‘The list of options, your client had a mmber of other adopting families that were in Poland at the same time, right? MR. SEARBY: I believe there were other THE COURT: And almost from the get-go hadn't they expressed a desire for a child that was one to two years of age? And hadn't they also, when they got to Poland and had the emotional trouble with the older daughter, hadn't they asked several times whether it might be possible to just adopt one? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, they talked about all options. I think one point that is important and it is clear, the Court read the FBI 302 and on behalf of Ms. Cole, I am appreciative of that fact because I think it puts the offense in conduct, but the Poland clients were very clear that they were not going to leave the child in Poland, and as of -- THE COURT: ‘That's because your Poland agent told them the child would never be adopted, that the child would get a red mark against the Parris, and that they would spend the rest of their life in an orphanage. MR. SEARBY: I think they were influenced by© onwIinne Wd BB 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 21 those comments, but if you read the FBI report of interview, they describe concems far the condition of the children in foster care in Poland. In any event, this came to Ms. Cole late, and at the point they came to Ms. Cole, there were approximately 48 hours between when Ms. Cole responded and first spoke to the mother of Poland client. And when they became the parents under Polish and U.S. law, and they did not cause -- my client did not cause the child to be placed there. They were given options, and in the FBI report of interview, they make it clear that they believe that Ms. Cole was acting in good faith; that she was trying to help, and she did not unduly influence them, that it was Ms. Parris they believe two years after the fact who was responsible for that. THE COURT: Okay. Well, I am going to overmule the cbjection. I do think the child was a vulnerable victim. I do think -- first of all, a victim of the offense under the Sixth Circuit Webster decision. And I do think it is fairly cbvious the child was vulnercble as well. So I will overrule the cbjection as to those two levels. I think the next cbjection is to 3B1.3, and© OI anne wne 10 & 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 the application of the abuse of position of trust. In this case, what's the Government's best argument on that? She to same degree was licensed or certified to mm an adoption agency. Is that enough to put samebody in a position of trust? MR. MANNING: Your Honor, that's one of the factors that we point to. ‘The Government's -- the Government would believe the two best axguments for why the abuse of trust enhancement applies, first off, central to the scheme is the fact that EAC was Licensed and accredited to carry out adoptions in Poland. And the letter from the Polish Central Authority to this Court makes clear that when the Polish Central Authority Licenses a U.S. agency to coordinate adoptions of their own vulnerable orphans, that they trust that the U.S. agency will follow the applicable mules and will disclose to the Polish Central Authority that they are following the mules. ‘They put their trust in FAC and in Cole to do that, and the EAC led by Margaret Cole abused that trust by concealing fram Polish authorities this plan to split two siblings, and the Polish Central Authority, their witness Mr. Pedgorski, at the trial would have made clear --© onInn ek wvne BE “4 16 i 18 19 «8 24 23 THE COURT: ‘That's true to same degree in all fraud cases. Is the comerstone of the position af trust whether the position is one that inherently has discretion? MR. MANNING: Yes. The comments to 3B1.3 enphasize the importance of an employee who has discretion and, therefore, is not subject to oversight. THE COURT: In this case, Poland may have xelied upon the agency to do an honest report, but I am not sure how an abuse of a position of trust, it seams abuse that the discretion is not inherent in the giving of a false statement. MR. MANNING: Well, your Honor, we have two arguments in response to that. One, Margaret Cole was the exscutive director of the agency, and so the way we xead that language about people who have positions that are subject to discretion, not subject to oversight, there was no one at EAC who could stop her once she put together this plan. And the Sixth Circuit's language in Freeman is instructive where the Sixth Circuit in Freeman says the essence of an abuse of trust is when you have a victim who is the sort of having less knowledge and has to tum to someone who by virtue of their position the© onIinwe wne BE 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 2 24 victim trusts and places their trust into that person to sort of guide them to do the right thing. Here the Poland clients had the situation where they were in Poland, and they realized they might not be able to raise these two kids, and they tum to Margaret Cole as the executive director of the agency and trust her to lead them to a solution that with all of her experience and expertise would be safe and ethical and legal. THE COURT: I am not sure you are not conflating the fact that there may have been, you know, a fraudulent -- a reliance upon fraudulent conduct and conflating that with the whole issue of: Were they given particular discretion? In this case, the two parents apparently had kept same discretion themselves as to whether they were going to tum the child over in the final transition. So how could they have been relying upon -- and they had been given these three options. ‘Two of them seamed to be fairly cbviously not workable. How was Cole given the discretion to make the final decision? MR. MANNING: Cole has the discretion to guide her clients how to resolve the situation and that the clients trusted her. If they are going to give© omIinwe wd PB BEB 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 2 25 options, the clients trust those options are legal and safe, and it is Cole who has decades of experience in this field that she has touted and bringing her clients into her business. ‘The clients are in Poland. They have never done an adoption before, and so they tum to her and place their trust in her, and when she is given options, she has the reasonable expectation that the options will be legal, that the options will be appropriate, and Cole abused that, and Cole made a choice to give an option that included, you know, this illegal scheme. THE COURT: Do you have any response on that? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, to the extent the Government is now trying to argue that Ms. Cole abused a position of trust with the clients, the clients don't believe that. Again, if you go to the FBI 302 and see what they are saying two years after the fact, they are saying take Ms. Cole was a good person and, quote unquote, trying to help. So they don't believe she abused a position. ‘THE COURT: I am not sure that's the center of the decision on the position of trust, you know, vihether the duped party appreciates that they were duped.© ownunu eke wne 10 & “4 26 Isn't it more a question as to whether Cole by regulation or statute was otherwise put in a position where the MR. SEARBY: Well, as the Government said, the question goes to really whether they are subject to oversight. The classic abuse of the position af trust is the lawyer is put in as a fiduciary person and as a competent person and steals their money. FAC was subject to the whole system of intemational adoptions to significant oversight. Under that system, the Council on Accreditation was appointed to act for the State Department and to conduct audits of the EAC, to conduct physical inspections of their offenses, and then EAC every four years had to go through a reaccreditation process. I think to the Court's question, to my friend from the Goverment, if you extend the enhancement this far, then in virtually every case when samebody does business with the Government or interfaces with the Government, a perceived false statement or false statement of conviction would result in the application of this enhancement, and I think it stretches the emhancerent way beyond its purpose. MR. MANNING: May the Government respond to© oOnInwe wne 21 24 27 one point? THE COURT: Go ahead. MR. MANNING: With respect to the oversight provided by Pilla, the evidence at trial would have shown that a centerpiece of that oversight is that the executive director as Margaret Cole had to provide a compliance with all the governing regulations, and the evidence would have shown that within that certification, she had done so after she organized the scheme. And therefore, she was placed in trust to certify to her compliance honestly, and she didn't. She sent in a false certification in a sense. To the Court's point, COA does not have the resources by every accredited agency in the United States and COA depends on the certifying honestly, and in this case, Ms. Cole abused that trust. ‘Thank you. THE COURT: I think to same degree you are correct there, but they rely on them, but I nonetheless am going to sustain the cbjection. I think the comerstone of 3B1.3 is really whether a Defendant has been put in a position where significant discretion was given by either regulation or by practice to the Defendant. And in this case, you correctly make an© onIinvw es wne 10 i 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 28 argument that the Polish authorities and to sare degree the Arerican authorities relied upon her statement. But I don't think that's the same determination as a determination as to whether the position itself gave her any particular discretion that would justify the 381.3 addition. So I will sustain the cbjection as to that. The Government had raised -- do you have any other objections? ‘MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, on behalf of Ms. Cole, we had a further cbjection to the organizer, leader, manager -- THE COURT: ‘That's correct. So in this, what's the best argument you have with regard to that? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, again, I think if you walk through the 302 and you listen to the Poland clients about what actually happened, Ms. Cole didn't organize the conduct here? enhanoarent focuses on Ms. Cole managing other shortly before the adoption being finalized in Poland, Poland clients on their own initiative reached out and asked her for help, and again, they believe Ms. Cole was trying to help. Ms. Cole was, in fact, a limitedo©oaIin ve Wne 10 BB 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 29 participant in what occurred. ‘The Government has relied on the fact that she was the director of FAC to suggest that this emhancatent is appropriate. I think the Sixth Circuit's decision in Camper cited in other sentencing memo is instructive in this regards, and what matters is not that someone is an organizer or a leader in an organization or even in the criminal conduct; what matters is you manage the conduct. I think we can come back to the Court's word, the discretion here, and a lot of what transpired here was at the discretion of the Poland clients. They were the ones who said they were not going to leave the child in Poland. They were the ones who chose the Parris relatives as the family over the option of other families and also respite care, which was really my client's recommendation. And I would note, as we do in other sentencing memos, Ms. Cole placed substantial discretion and had limited oversight of what Ms. Parris did. In fact, Ms. Cole gave her power of attorney to do anything in furtherance of the business of the FAC. So for those reasons and those stated in the sentencing mano, we believe the organizer, manager, enhancerent is inappropriate under the facts of this case.© oawIinwne WNdPe 10 BE 14 16 7 18 19 20 21 24 30 THE COURT: In her discussions with Parris, didn't she tell Parris to get the family to agree that they had only taken the child for temporary holding? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, there is the email that the Court has probebly seen where Ms. Parris sends an email -- I believe it was Ms. Parris sends an email to that effect to Ms. Cole. I have no information that e-mail was ever used. But I think it is important that in the trial of the crime against the child camitted by the Parris relative, Ms. Parris repeatedly testified under oath that, in fact, the transfer was for respite care. So that would have been a true statement at the time. In fact, the only legal status -- they couldn't say the child was transferred to the adoptive parents because they had no legal status. ‘The only legal status they had at the time of the transfer in 2015 was for temporary care pending either an approval of an adoption, and that may have been their hope and dream, but that was not, in fact, the status in July of 2015 when the child was transferred from Poland clients to the Parris relatives. THE COURT: But it was never intended to be respite with the idea that the child would go back to the Utah couple, was it?oonrInwne wo ne 10 un 14 16 17 18 19 20 8 24 31 ‘MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, if you look at the report written by the social worker, Nancy Wolf attached to cur sentencing memo who spoke to Poland client right before they left Poland, the discussion was about temporary respite care. There are also emails between my client and Poland client where they discuss the benefits of respite care. In fact, Poland client says that she is even having cold feet about transferring the child temporarily. So no, I would not say that was never the ‘That was, in fact, my Client's hope that what would happen was they could return to their hame after six wecks in Poland. They could get a break for this child who they reported was extremely difficult, and then, they could make a clear decision about whether they co-parent the child or whether there would be another solution. THE COURT: Well, Parris though, Parris at your client's direction solicited the e-mail from the recipient couple, right, falsely saying that it was only a temporary guardianship. MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, my client is unclear on it. Ms. Parris may say she did it at Ms. Cole's suggestion, but I think you have to ask© OInne wWnde yourself —- THE COURT: She gave that to your client, and your client then forwarded it on, correct? MR. SEARBY: That's correct, and Ms. Parris testified over and over in a Texas Court that, in fact, the transfer was for respite care. THE COURT: But your client knew that the Parris couple was, you know, they were brought into the play only because of your client, right? Your client said there are three options, a single New York woman, a Utah couple with five or so kids, and the Parris couple which seemed attractive because they had one daughter relatively close in age to the 5 year-old. MR. SEARBY: There was three options, and there was a fourth. THE COURT: Who gave the fourth? MR. SEARBY: As I understand it, it was a foster care situation in Utah. THE COURT: Do you have same response on the manager? MR. MANNING: Yeah. ‘Thank you, your Honor. Briefly, first, the Government is puzzled by the advocacy by the defense here because Ms. Cole pleaded guilty under oath in this Court to Count 11 and Count 13, both of which at their core had false statements abouto©onwIinn ek wVne 10 8 saying that this was for respite care when Cole knew that it was not at the time the child came out of Poland, we are surprised this issue is being revisited here. As for the application of the organizer, leader enhancement, this Court is exactly right, this ‘two-point enhancement that we are secking under the Sixth Circuit law, recruiting someone into the conspiracy or supervising someone under the conspiracy is sufficient for the enhancement to apply. Here Margaret Cole brought Parris into the conspiracy. Parris otherwise had no contact with the Poland client. She brought her into the conspiracy, recommended that her relatives take this child, coordinated with Parris to direct these false statements. The email your Honor is referring to is dated Decenber 9th, 2016, and in Debra Parris' guilty plea, she indicated she sent that to Ms. Cole at Cole's direction to falsely stay the detention with respite care. ‘Two days later Margaret Cole uses that to send the false statement to Polish authorities repeating this falsehood, relying on what she has cbtained from Debra Parris. Parris is a salaried EAC employee, and so we also argue that Margaret Cole organized and led co-conspirator 1's participation in this as well whooO9Inne wndPh 10 n 14 16 17 18 19 2 23 24 2 depended on FAC for Immdreds of thousands in revenue. And for all these reasons for the manager, the Carter and Rexton precedent in the Sixth Circuit, the onganizer enhancement applies here, your Honor. MR. SEARBY: One sentence, your Honor. My client did not manage or supervise the day-to-day activities of the other individuals who were charged. THE COURT: Okay. I am going to overrule the cbjection to the two-level increase for the organizer, leader. ‘here was other participants. I find that the Defendant really had the decision-making authority, and she was involved with the recruitment of Parris, and there is no indication that she got a larger share of the money, but she did exercise a degree of control that was over Parris and over the others that I think justifies the 3B1.1 increase. I think those are all the objections that I had seen. ‘The Government raises one cbjection as best I understand arguing that medical conditions are not specifically a grounds for a sentencing decision. Do you have anything you want to say cn that? MS. RICE: Thank you, your Honor. I can speak to that.© onIinnwe owner BEB “4 16 7 18 19 20 21 24 2 were limited medical records included, and that was simply commenting the Government had not seen more specific records. During the Government's discussion of the 3553(a) factors, we will speak further as to the To the extent this is an cbjection, it is an cbjection to any variance or departure based on medical THE COURT: Okay. Medical conditions I find under more recent authority to be sanething that can be considered. So if that was an cbjection to that, I will overrule it. So in this case, I would set the base offense level at 6. I would find there should be a six-level increase under Guideline 2B1.1(b) (10), which would take it to 12. I find a further two-level increase because I find a vulnerable victim was involved. I give a further two-level increase because I find the Defendant under 3B1.1 that the Defendant was a leader, manager, or supervisor of the criminal activity. I would decline to give the 3B1.3 increase that is suggested because I find the position of trust is not applicable. ‘That adjustment is not applicable inononwinn ek wne 10 1 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 2 36 this case. So I set the adjusted offense level at 16. ‘The Defendant gets two levels off for acceptance of responsibility. The total offense level comes in at 14. The Defendant has no Criminal History points. She receives a Criminal History Category I. United States have any argument before sentence is imposed? MS. RICE: ‘Thank you, your Honor. May I approach the podium and speak from the podium? THE COURT: Yes. Let me ask you to hold for just a second. Chay. Do you have any argument? MS. RICE: Thank you, your Honor. Before I begin, there are victims that would like to speak. Would you like to hear from them now or after the Government makes argument? THE COURT: Why don't you ask then to speak before? MS. RICE: Thank you, your Honor. MR. DAVIS: My name is Adam Davis. This is my wife Jessica, my son Isaac. We would thank you, your Honor, for this brief mament today to share with the Court a little of our experience with Margaret Cole andeo oInowe WONh 10 & 4 16 17 1g 20 21 23 24 2 37 European Adoption Consultants. In 2015, our family adopted a child fran Uganda through European Adoption Consultants. Upon our xetum to the United States from Uganda, we reported to EAC many unseemly happenings in Uganda, via European Adoption Consultants, managers, and in-country team. We requested on miltiple occasions to speak with Margaret Cole regarding the bribery, the harassment, the exploitation, the threats, and the coercion that we had witnessed there believing Margaret Cole would be None of our phone calls were ever returned by her. When we learned a year later that the child we adopted was not uneducated, had not been abandoned by a neglectful or indifferent mother and had three times as meny siblings as what we were told not to mention a huge extended family that loved our adopted daughter very much, we made the difficult but humane decision, the moral decision to reunite this child with the family and the mother who never intended to surrender her parental rights to her child to begin with. After our child was returned home to her mother and family, only then did Margaret Cole try and contact us, not to follow-up on the many ethical concems we had expressed about her adoption outfit, not to© owrnue wvne inquire about our welfare or the welfare of our adopted child, Margaret Cole contacted us then to breathe threats and to protect the empire she had built praying upon the poor and exploited the world's most vulnerable children for financial gain. Margaret Cole is EAC, and EAC is Margaret Cole. She is responsible for this criminal enterprise from top to bottan. The lowest level child finder in our daughter's rural village in Uganda spoke directly to Margaret Cole on the phone when our daughter xetumed home as our attomey can confirm, She is that intricately involved in her operation. She cannot plead ignorance to anything when to EAC. Margaret Cole not only swindled our family out of our life savings, trafficking children for adoption, but she was also prepared to slander me to my employer and rob me of my livelihood as well as our child's social worker at the time can attest. Margaret Cole is guilty. ‘Those willing to exploit the poor and cammoditize the children of the poor in pursuit of wealth belong in their own nefarious category of inhumanity. We ask that her sentence today reflect this. Again, thank you for the time. THE COURT: ‘Thank you. itoom nun ek wne 39 MS. RICE: ‘Thank you, your Honor. I will reference the additional victim impact statements, which I know your Honor has received and read in a manent. But I wanted to start with, as my colleague referenced, a reminder that I didn't think we would have to go back over the ground of why we are here today. But Margaret Cole has pled guilty to knowingly and willfully making false statements, to knowingly and voluntarily entering into a conspiracy to defraud the United States. In her sentencing filings and argument today, there seams to be sare backwards ground as to whether she truly is admitting to the conduct here. The Government is not asking the Court to eliminate the two levels for acceptance of responsibility, but we are a bit perplexed we have to revisit ground we thought we already covered at our plea hearing and plea agreement. So with that background, your Honor, this is a serious offense. This is not a one-day or a two-day offense. This is not a lapse in judgment. This is conduct that spanned over a year that involved lies to United States authorities, to foreign authorities, and Perhaps, most importantly, to couples who were putting©onwinune wWne 10 BB 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 40 their full trust in her with respect to the livelihood of children of orphans. ‘The Defendant has routinely referred to this as being a few days and feeling badly that she offered to help the Rumpuses. ‘This was not a technical or administrative violation; this was not a reporting violation. This was making lies to COA, to the Polish Central Authority, and to Rumpuses. THE COURT: What's your theory, if the Rumpus adoption fell through, what's the theory on how that impacts the Defendant? MS. RICE: Thank you, your Honor. The testimony at trial would have been from the Polish Central Authority that EAC would have lost their accreditation, and at the time of the Rumpus adoption pending, Poland was 40 percent of the revenue for EAC. THE COURT: Well, let me go back. They go over there. ‘There is same indication they are told it would be just a visit, and they would came back and make a decision not to adopt anyone. Is that the background? MS. RICE: With respect to when the Rumpuses first went to Poland? THE COURT: Yes, in 2015. MS. RICE: So they went to Poland believing© nonIinnw ee wde u4 16 7 19 20 21 24 they immediately discovered — THE COURT: I thought the representative in Poland had made some statement to them, to the impact that if they got over there and decided they couldn't handle two, that they could just leave without any. MS. RICE: You are referring to co-conspirator 1, your Honor? THE COURT: Yes. MS. RICE: So what the final understanding of the Rumpuses, they could not just take one or be red marked. THE COURT: ‘That's after they get over MS. RICE: Correct. You are talking about in proceeding, going through the lengthy process of getting to Poland to adopt? THE COURT: Right. MS. RICE: Yes. ‘They were given a mutber of adoptions who they could adopt, but initially, they did not want to adopt older children and were told there would be other options, and as your Honor is well aware, when they got to Poland with the two sisters, they -- it was more than they felt their family could handle, which brings us here today.eo onrinune wne 10 BoB 14 I don't know if I answered your question accurately, your Honor. THE COURT: So they get over to Poland. They spend six or seven weeks with the two young girls? MS. RICE: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: And then, they try to -- they notice same fairly immediate difficulty with regard to the older child, less difficulty with regard to the younger child. MS. RICE: Correct. They noticed difficulty with both, but they found the older one had more severe mental difficulties that would be difficult for them with their three sons and the younger child to provide the adequate care. THE COURT: Aren't they then in a quandary because they obviously have grown to love these two girls been told that the girls will just be condamed to a life in an orphanages if they don't take then? Aren't they in a quandary where they can't handle two, but they don't want to leave either child there? MS. RICE: That's correct, and I will note that the 302 that the Court has from several years ago,ooawIinn se Wve 1 14 16 17 19 20 21 24 we are glad the Court has that, the Rumpuses' interviews, but to note at that time, the Rumpuses were not shown nor were they aware of any of the false statements that the Defendant has admitted to, and there were are later interviews and testimony given by then. But one thing they were consistent on throughout, they had been consistent on all of their testimony, they were not leaving either child there because they were told if they left one child in Poland, that child would be red marked, likely left in an orphanage and could potentially die. THE COURT: Would Poland allow the immigration of a single one of these sisters? MS. RICE: No. If the Polish authorities had been notified as they should have been, they would not have allowed the siblings to have been split up, and Mc. Pedgorski would have testified to that at trial and speaks to that in his impact statement. THE COURT: So they are in a position where it is either all or nothing, right? MS. RICE: Correct, your Honor, and while they realize they could not care for both children, they, of course, wanted nothing but the best for them, And that's why based on the representations from the Defendant the Tufts family was so appealing. They© orIann ke wVn Pe 44 believed this was a family that could give the adequate care and attention to the older child that she neaded. They cared for her very much as evidenced by the fact that after she was horrifically abused, they spent years of their life and expense to get her back to her family. But yes, your Honor, they certainly at the forefront of their mind was ensuring that both children were cared for and placed in a hare where they would be safe, which speaking to the Defendant's role here, your Honor, she commmicated with them. They trusted her. They called her up, and as the 302 and emails show, they were in a very emotionally charged, very trying situation, and they tumed to her and her thousand adoptions, years of expertise to do and guide them in what is legal. She had miltiple opportumities. It was referenced earlier that this all happened within 48 hours. Forty eight hours was more than enough time to notify the Polish authorities that a family in Poland will not be taking both children to their hane. Forty eight hours, if it is even 48 hours -- the Government submits it was mach longer than that —- that is sufficient time to notify COA. That is sufficient time to tell the truth. ‘The Defendant chose not to and instead facilitated ando©onInn ek wVne 10 & u4 16 7 19 20 2 23 24 25 45 led this conspiracy to have the child transferred to a family that had no vetting, had no background check, and the Defendant in her years of experience, decades of doing intercountry adoption is well aware of the requirements for background checks and vetting, and indeed, when the Rumpuses asked has this family had a hone study, there was no response. There also has been reference to and various filings, this being a black swan event and this never happening before. Well, one of the counts to which the Defendant has pled guilty and admitted conducting committing is knowingly and willfully making a false statement. And the Defendant is well aware the need to tell the truth. This is certainly not the first time. There have been reports required to COA or to foreign comtries. So this is not a black swan event when it cames to telling the truth and being honest. And here what is really telling, your Honor, and speaks to the Defendant's intent at the time of the original transfer of the children to the Tufts family is that months and months go by where she knows they have not been vetted, where the Polish authorities have not been notified, where COA has not been notified, and she ces nothing.wor nu em wre 10 1 4 16 Eb 19 20 21 24 46 She tells no one, and when it comes time for the six-month post-placarent, as she is well aware in every intercountry adoption are required from the family, there is no post-placament report for the child with the Tufts family. One is submitted late and is not at all in line with the appropriate requirements of post-placement xeport. Yet, no disclosure is made at the time, ‘The first disclosure, as your Honor is aware, April 2016, and that one contains false statements, lies, Now, your Honor, in the sentencing memorandum for the defense, there is a reference that this was not submitted by Margaret Cole. In the Government's supplemental exhibits and as testified to at trial, the only other employer whose name is identified there on the 2016 report, she would not have submitted anything to COA without the direction and authority of Margaret Cole. So whether or not she pressed "send," she caused the information to be made and false statements to be made. With respect to the August 2016, false statement to COA, your Honor, several things speak volumes with respect to that. First of all, it starts out by saying "we© orInn e® wVn Pe 10 i 14 16 i 1s 19 BR 24 47 are not being investigated," again highlighting what was at the forefront of the Defendant's mind at the time; was not the injuries that had been sustained by this orphan but what was happening to her agency. This is also referenced in the 302 report of the Utah family where they said when they spoke to the Defendant after learning what happened to the older child. She said this is going to ruin my agency." And indeed, at that point, as the Government has provided exhibits and highlighted and elicited at trial, Poland was more than 40 percent of the revenue for her business. Pocreditation was pending in foreign countries, in that country and other countries, and it, indeed, would have a significant effect on her business. But instead of being honest at that point, she continued to lie. She claimed the date of incident was August 30th of 2016 when, in fact, she had been notified wecks earlier, and this is significant because an injury like this must be reported within 48 hours. She deliberately indicated the date as being within the 48-hour reporting requirement. This was not a technical or accidental mistake as she has admitted under cath; this was knowingly and willfully done intending that the fraudulent statement would influence COA and the Polish authorities.© oa Inwe wne 10 is} 14 16 17 19 20 21 23 24 25 48 And the Decetber 2016 letter to the Polish references this was drafted by an attorney, and it my have been drafted in consultation with an attorney, but certainly, Margaret Cole had significant involvement, and her attorney would only know what to write based on the Indeed, in Government's Exhibit J there is an e-mail commication chain between her and her attomey, and what her attomey says "you must read all of it to be sure it says what we want," followed again by So acknowledging the importance of the hana study and the fact it was not done. Following that the Defendant and her co-conspirator exchange emails in which the Defendant says to her with respect to the letter "let's do it ourselves. I will send you what I wrote for the training part." So despite her efforts to minimize her involvement in this lengthy letter and repeated false statements, she was directly involved and deliberate and was given to the Polish authorities. As referenced earlier by my colleague, intercountry adoption is a system based on trust. COA has to rely on the integrity of the agencies ando©nonwinn ae one 10 21 24 49 directors like Margaret the Cole. Certainly, the authorities, as Mr. Pedgorski detailed in his statement, xely on the trust and integrity and trust of people like Margaret Cole. When it is abused, there are far-reaching damage as has been evidenced here. ‘The victims, as your Honor highlighted, include the older child who, while it is fortunate that the Utah family fought to have her back in her family and they are working everyday to make sure she has a good life, she will never recover from what she suffered. The Utah family themselves, as detailed in their victim impact statement, feel betrayed, have lost trust. It has permanently -- hopefully not permanently -- but severely damaged their entire family. The other families that were pending adoption in Poland at the time that Margaret Cole led this conspiracy, they are also victims. They as outlined in the statement from Mr. Pedgorski and the State Department, they either were delayed in their adoptions or could not adopt any children at all. And certainly, international relations were affected as detailed by the State Department and Mr. Pedgorski in his statement. Now, this was not with respect to theo©onIinvn ese WdRh 50 3553 (a) factors, and the nature and characteristics of the Defendant, certainly, the Government acknowledges she has done good things in her life. There are families here she has created because of her work and adoption. The Government does not dispute that, and all of the people that wrote letters during the time in the Russia program, the Government does not dispute that those are good acts she has done. But of note, all of those letters in support are from up through the mid 2000s. After the Russia program closed, things changed at EAC. ‘That was a large basis of revenue for EAC, and it was not until the Poland program that there were European countries that EAC felt they could do adoption with, and that is why the Poland program was so important for EAC and the motivation for this year-long deceit and fraud. With xespect to the Defendant's background and characteristics, your Honor, she is educated. She attended a year of law school. Certainly, as I referenced, she has done same good acts, but that does not eliminate or avoid the seriousness and extent of the ham done here. With respect to her medical conditions, your Honor, the Government submits that they all can be© oaIinn es wne BE 14 16 7 19 20 21 24 2 treated in the Bureau of Prisons. There is nothing, at least based on the Limited amount of medical records the Government received, that cannot be treated in custody. There was reference to ongoing screenings, medications, and certainly other cases in this Circuit, individuals that have similar conditions that have With respect to COVID and the argument that she would be eligible for compassionate release, all of the cases cited by Defendant were prevaccination, and courts have routinely denied extraordinary and compelling xeasons for compassionate release when the Defendant has been vaccinated, and the 3553(a) factors do not warrant it as they do here. Touching briefly on sentencing disparities, your Honor, as you are well aware, her co-Defendant Robin Longoria, who is certainly less culpable and pled guilty years earlier, received a sentence of 12 months and one day. THE COURT: Are you familiar with the JSIN? MS. RICE: I am, your Honor. THE COURT: And the final offense level of 14 with a Criminal History Category 1, are you familiar with what the median and average sentences are?o©onwnu ek wn eB & 4 16 7 is 19 20 21 23 24 25 MS. RICE: I am not for offense level 14, your Honor. I had calculated that based on offense level 16, which the Government submitted we believed was the Guidelines calculation. So I can't speak to offense level 14. Certainly, if your Honor has that figure —- THE COURT: 81 percent of people received imprisonment that came under that Guideline at that offense level and Criminal History Category, and the average length of incarceration was 11 months. The median was 12 months. So it appears that the broad majority of people in her Criminal History Category and her offense level received incarceration, and it ranged somewhere around 11 or 12 months. Is there same arguent given her age it should be somewhat lower. MS. RICE: No, your Honor, it is not unusual for first time fraud offenders to be older, and certainly, at the time that she -- THE COURT: Somewhat older than the median age, but it is somewhat unusual at her age, right? MS. RICE: Again, yes. Somewhat older than across all fraud offenses in this District, yes. THE COURT: So relative to -~ is there any zeal argument for specific deterrence to be a factor?ooInune owner 10 1 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 MS. RICE: Specific deterrence, your Honor, THE COURT: And relative to general deterrence, is that kind of a weak factor? How many people are going to hear about whether I give a longer sentence or shorter sentence? How many people are really going to hear and otherwise be deterred? MS. RICE: Your Honor, I would respectfully disagree. ‘The general deterrence is of utmost importance here because -- and I can't state it better than Ms. King from the Department of State said -- "countries in note of Ms. Cole's actions and how she has exploited the intercountry adoption for her own personal gain." General deterrence is important in all white collar cases and fraud cases and absolutely is important here. Intercountry adoption is a system based on trust, and as the Defendant has referenced, the statute she pled guilty to has not had a conviction before. So highlighting that this type of conduct in years of lies and false statements to foreign and U.S. authorities will not be stood for. So respectfully, your Honor, the Government submits general deterrence is very important in this case. And with respect to the sentencingooOInwne owner lo i 14 16 17 1g 20 21 23 24 25 disparities, your Honor, just briefly, thank you for those nutbers, certainly, the Government believes that there is no basis to disparity or varying from the Guidelines or from these average and median sentences nor fram the sentence of her co-conspirator. It is not umisual for first-time offenders to not have a criminal record. Indeed, in 2020 71.8 percent convictions — THE COURT: That's almost given. I think the statement was it is not umsual for first-time offenders not to have a record. MS. RICE: I'm sorry, your Honor. For individuals convicted under 2B1.1 to be first time offenders is what I meant to say. THE COURT: Okay. MS. RICE: And the statistic was that 71.8 percent of individuals sentenced under the fraud provision 2B1.1 were first-time offenders. So the fact that she is not — does not have a Criminal History does not place her in an unusual situation for a fraud offense. Finally, with respect to 28 U.S.C., Section 994 (5), which the defense references mitiple times in their sentencing memorancim, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly said that's a directive to the Sentencing Comission, not to the judicial officers.© owInn ek wd Pe 10 1 4 16 7 18 19 20 21 24 substantially, in part, to address disparities in white collar offenses. THE COURT: Let me ask you, generally with B1.1, she ends up at a 14 with a Criminal History Category I. Because of the way 2B1.1 operates, wouldn't most of the people that end up at 14, Criminal History Category I, wouldn't most of them be kind of larger dollar volume fraud Defendants where the conduct may well have involved significantly more money than this case? MS. RICE: That may or may not be the case, depending on the enhancements. Certainly, that could be the case where there was lower dollar amount, and there were a nunber of victims or there were sophisticated means, so not necessarily, your Honor. I don't think that only because it is under B1.1 means that there is significant dollar loss here, but the Goverment is not disputing the dollar loss here; that there is no dollar loss. However, the damage and the seriousness of this offense cannot be measured in dollars. THE COURT: Are you seeking any restitution? MS. RICE: No, your Honor. ‘The victims haven't requested restitution, and it is the Government's position that those figures would be too difficult or© own nw ee wD PB BE 14 16 17 19 20 21 24 56 complex to calculate. We concur that any hann suffered by the older child would be too difficult to calculate any restitution. So no, your Honor, we are not seeking restitution from Margaret Cole. There were requests made from victims related to the relevant conduct in the Uganda schare, but the Government is cognizant that she has not been convicted of those. While they are relevant and speak to her character and the Court may consider all relevant conduct for sentencing, we are not seeking restitution. THE COURT: Okay. Let me give counsel for the defense an opportunity to make argument. MS. RICE: ‘Thank you, your Honor. And I would just reference again the victim impact statements from all of the victims, including the State Department and Mr. Pedgorski from Polish Central Authority. ‘Thank you. MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, we would also ask to have the opportunity to have several individuals address the Court at this tim. THE COURT: Pick two that you want. MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, I am going to have a tough time when I walk out of here talking to the thirdooOI HA He wWNH lo i 4 16 7 18 19 BR 24 57 THE COURT: Flip a coin. MR. SEARBY: All right. We will start, your Honor, with Alex Rokakis. MR. ROKAKIS: Good morning, your Honor. May I remove my mask? ‘THE COURT: Yes. MR. ROKAKIS: ‘Thank you. My name is Alex Rokakis. I will be brief, your Honor, as I have expressed my thoughts and my letter to the Court earlier this month. You have hundreds of pages from this file, including letters of support for Margaret Cole and letters from victims and testimony today from a victim. Perhaps it is inappropriate for ma, a 33-year former menber of the Office of the U.S. Attomey and a person who has not seen the entire file, to advocate for leniency for Margaret Cole, but regardless here I am today to speak on her behalf and argue for leniency. In the United States, we don't have orphanages anymore, your Honor; we have foster homes. We no longer have orphanages. They have long fallen by the wayside. We have these foster hanes where children without parents are cared for.oon we Wne 10 & 14 16 i 19 BR 24 FJ But I have been to orphanages in Moscow where you walk in the door where the children are clothed and fed but not loved. You walk in the door, and they xun up, and they throw their ams around you because, they want you to take them home and become their mama and or their papa. I have seen these children, and I have adopted two of them. I know what good Margaret Cole has accomplished. Over 8,000 lives have been changed for the better; 8,000 adults that would have grown up unloved and tuumed out into the streets to fend for themselves. My own son might have been conscripted into the Russian Amy and been forced to fight in the Ukraine. Margaret Cole may have lost her adoption agency, but she has the eternal gratitude of thousands of people like myself who are forever in her debt. Since a search warrant was executed on her home and business and she was indicted five years ago, she has suffered greatly. I pray that the good she has done outweighs the mistake she made on this one adoption, your Honor, and you take that into consideration. Thank you, your Honor, THE COURT: ‘Thank you. MR. SEARBY: Mr. Mack? MR. MACK: Good morning, your Honor. My© oInn ek wd PB 10 b 14 16 7 18 1g BR 24 59 name is Dave Mack. I am fram Chicago. I and my wife adopted three children at different times, through FAC and with the help of Margaret Cole, and she changed our lives. THE COURT: What years? A JUROR: I'm sorry. What years did we do it? This was in the former Soviet Union, so it was '92 and '94, '92 and '94. THE COURT: Goon. I just was trying to give context to your comments. MR. MACK: The former Soviet Union was the place. Our son was an infant, and he was in Penza, Russia. Our middle daughter was two and-a-half, and she was in Kazakhstan, and our third daughter is the one in 1994, is from Moscow, an orphanage in Moscow. She is the one who wrote you a letter about her experience. She is in South Korea with the U.S. Amy as a captain. I am here really to talk about, as Alex did, the accomplishments and the good deeds that Margaret really did. She changed lives with the 8,000 children, and I want to put in order of magnitude on the 8,000 plus children. Tt was over a 24 to 25 year pericd 8,000, slightly less than one child for everyday in that 24, 25 year period. So it was quite a body of work.oon winnw eke wde & u4 16 i 19 BR 24 My particular children had lots of medical issues. We have been able to deal with those issues, and they are all on their own. ‘They are adults. ‘They are on their own financially, and I would say that the key to this is the children that she has helped, that have gotten adopted ended up in a better place than where they were. That is huge. And I feel -- I feel that should weigh something in the sentencing that you are going to give for Margaret Cole. ‘Thank you. THE COURT: Okay. ‘hank you. Do you have any argument before sentence is imposed? MR. SEARBY: I do, your Honor. THE COURT: She will get a chance after you. MR. SEARBY: Okay. Thank you, your Honor. Your Honor, may it please the Court, the Court asked the Government questions under the 3553 factors regarding general deterrence. There is no issue of specific deterrence. My client is not a threat to anyone and is no longer involved as a result of the Government's debanrent in the adoption industry. I think as the Court got a flavor during the Daubert hearing, Mr. Berger, I have leamed through this case that the world of intemational adoption is a small world, and what happened has happened to Ms. Cole is welloonIinnw ek wn!) 10 BEB 14 16 i 18 19 BR 24 known throughout that comity. And regardless of the sentence the Court imposes, this has become a cautionary tail. And no one wants to go down the road Ms. Cole has been down. Unfortunately, as you've heard today fran ‘two people and we could have brought many, many former clients to talk about what has happened, Ms. Cole's life has been defined by an adoption that went terribly wrong, not the thousands and thousands that went right. And as I listened hand to the conversation between the Court and the Government and the Court rightly talked about the dilemma faced by the Poland clients and also faced by Ms. Cole, which she stepped into this situation, which was not of her own making, it should also be appreciated that these children in Poland were eligible to be adopted because, as was stated in the ceouments that were translated from the Polish government. There were not individuals in Poland, that after six months that were willing to adopt them. It was at that point the Polish government was willing to have ‘them adopted fram abroad. And of course, in the 302 you see the concems for the condition of the children on behalf of© OI noe wne 10 & m4 16 17 19 20 21 24 which was steadfast, that they were unwilling to leave the children in Poland. And that was really one thing they were certain about. ‘The government talked about in that 48 hours the Polish government could have been contacted. Yes, they could have been contacted, but the problem again, borne out by the FBI 302, the parents had made their In fact, they hadn't made a final decision when they left Poland. They made that decision at Charles DeGaulle Airport. According to what they said at the FBI in the 302 after they had a bad night and they finally decided that they could not parent both children, bat during the 48-hour window, whether it is 48 hours, 72 hours that the government talked about, they had not made a final decision and would have been inappropriate of my client at that point to notify the Polish government. Ms. Cole did not get involved in the events that lead her to be before the Court today to commit a crime. She became involved because the Polish clients asked for her help, and again, they believed she acted in good faith. We accept responsibility that Ms. Cole exercised poor judgment with reporting from those moments forward, and the offense conduct, the stipulated conduct© oOIn we Wwne “4 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 2 in the plea agreement speaks to that, and we accept that her disclosuxes to the interested parties were sametimes late. They lacked candor, but there were disclosures, and events were made. THE COURT: Wouldn't she -- wasn't she largely covering hersel£? MR. SEARBY: I think, your Honor, there was a motive in the end to deflect blame here. THE COURT: I mean, maybe the most unseamingly is you have got this 5 year-old girl who seemingly is brutally raped. Is a 5 year-old that seemingly has gone through a medical examination before she ever leaves Poland. Bnd this child is to same degree tom apart. And your client's first reaction is to basically claim it must have happened in Poland at a time when the nurse that examined the child cbviously said no way, shape, form. Was this something that happened before? Your client did that two or three times, basically blaming it on sane rape in Poland and rather than accepting the fact that Parris had done it. MR. SEARBY: The Parris relatives. THE COURT: ‘he Parris relatives in Texas. MR. SEARBY: Right. And I understand the Court's concern, but let's put it in context; that in the© oInnw ek wvde 10 B&B 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 disclosures where my client cbviously placed an emphasis on the evidence of potential prior abuse in Poland, not in Texas -- THE COURT: What evidence was that? You kmow, I looked, and the child's statement was something to the impact that somebody in Poland had hit her foot. MR. SEARBY: Yeah. ‘The Poland clients noted the injuries to the foot. That's not what was at issue. What my client did in the disclosures and it is important is with her statement she forwarded the repart fram the detective in Teas. THE COURT: Yeah, but didn't she to a major degree try to give an explanation that was completely different? MR. SEARBY: No. I would not say that she tried to give an explanation that was completely different. She noted there were new injuries and old and I think at its worst -- THE COURT: Let me find that because for the life of me I don't remenber her saying new injuries. MR. SEARBY: But the point is the document forwarded with her commication was, in fact, the police report fram the detective, which talked about the new injuries, which could not have occurred in Poland. THE COURT: Right. Absolutely. So why© oI ane wD PB 10 un 4 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 23 would she bring them up in the letter to both the Polish officials and the letter to the detective? MR. SEARBY: Well, your Honor, again, I am not trying to excuse the way it was written, but the information was provided from the detective, the full complete report, and Mr. Roberts, in fact, contacted the detective before trial to make sure that that report fron the detective was complete and accurate to what the detective prepared. And that report talks about old injuries and new injuries. You know, the way that the old injuries were emphasized, I understand the Court's strong disagreement with that. And that's why we are here. Bat in that very same commication, if someone read the full cammication, they would see the information as to the new injuries and the fact that the Parris relative -- THE COURT: She gives an explanation, and I am looking at the document. "Because there was evidence of old healed injuries that cocurred before the adoption we didn't think that the issue raised in Detective Breen's letter regarding past sexual and physical abuse of the child and his report, that there was evidence of healed injuries that were possibly several years old was reportable to the ministry."oon winue wne BRB 4 16 17 66 She doesn't say anything about the new MR. SEARBY: But she attaches the detective's report to it. I don't have in front of me what the Court is reading from, but I am not disagreeing with you. I just believe that that commmication also forwarded the report. THE COURT: And then, she goes on to say "immediately upon learning of the August 2016 hospitalization, I telephoned my representative in Poland, and a report was made about the possible injury and abuse in Polish foster care." So she is deflecting them from appreciating that the rape and the terrible injuries to this child ccourred in Texas, not in Poland. MR. SEARBY: I would agree with the Court, she is placing emphasis on the old injuries, but -- I mean, the detective's report talks about both, but cbviously, new injuries were significant and could have only occurred in Texas, and we agree with the Court on that. THE COURT: When did she have the nurse's notes? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, I am not certain of the exact date or that she did, in fact, have the nurse'soon we wne 10 notes. What I believe she had was detective Bearten's report, but I am not certain on that question. THE COURT: Do you remeber the nurse's notes what document that was? MS. RICE: Your Honor, there was a news article that detailed the substance of the assault and the abuse dated October 2016. THE COURT: Yeah. And she had gotten that from the person, her representative in Poland, right? MS. RICE: Correct, your Honor. THE COURT: Do you know if she ever got the nurse's examination notes? MS. RICE: Your Honor, we don't know if she got the actual notes, but the article includes the medical infomation, and your Honor, also Government's Sentencing Exhibit C, the August 2016 COA report, Margaret Cole writes, "this incident appears to have MR. SEARBY: I apologize, your Honor. I was verifying that my client did not have the nurse's notes. THE COURT: Okay. MR. SEARBY: But I don't think she needed the murse's notes. I think the detective'’s report said it all. But there were two issues here: ‘The major© ownwn es wDvne 10 BKB 4 16 a7 20 21 24 25 issue was, I think the Government and Poland would want to know that one of its children was grievously hamned. ‘The other issue was the extent to what the detective said, not simply my client, that there was prior injuries. I think there was an ethical duty to report that, and that was reported to Poland in August, but reporting the old injuries doesn't in any way excuse or deny the new ones. It can't logically, if you study, the nature of the injuries. Your Honor, if I could, I would like to address the fact that Ms. Cole's involvement in this event was not for personal profit. She was involved because she was asked to help. The Government has suggested that it was a profit motive to deflect blame in onder to protect the Poland program because it was such a significant part of the business. THE COURT: Let me take you back to her letter to the Polish authorities. She begins on page 5 "we would like to briefly actress the situation with the child in Denton, Texas. Unfortunately, this past August, after they adopted the child, the child was injured under circumstances that seamed to implicate the father. However, at this point, he has not been formally chargedwo oI nne wne 10 i 14 16 17 18 19 20 a 24 69 with a crime and may very well be innocent of all "He has a clean criminal record and has no history of violence, has passed a polygraph test regarding the injuries, and there doesn't seem to be conclusive evidence even that a crime has been committed." At a time when this child wes using some kind of colostamy bag. MR. SEARBY: That's correct, your Honor. ‘The emphasis given that the individual may be innocent, the individual went to trial later. He was convicted. ‘There was a defense in the case. So your Honor, we are not here -- we are here before the Court because there were disclosures that were made. Qbviously, if we could go back in time, cbviously, Ms. Cole would have made those disclosures. We are not here to defend what she has done but to acospt responsibility. We are here to say these events around this adoption were an aberration and a life well lived in helping other people. HE COURT: ‘The Government makes an argument that she engaged in this conduct basically because the business was failing, and she was extremely concerned that if she got kicked out of Poland by failing to© oOInnwe Wd 10 & 4 16 7 18 19 20 21 24 70 complete an adoption that she wouldn't be able to keep the business going. Is there same support for that argument in MR. SEARBY: Your Honor —— THE COURT: I was going to point you to paragraph 89 of the presentence report. MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, what we would say is the following: Mr. Benderson, I think what he wanted to talk about with the Court were the strong reasons why he came to believe after offering money to Ms. Cole to build the FAC, he came to believe that her primary motive was not financial; it was the pride in building this agency. So clearly, she was trying to deflect blame as the Court points out as to the disclosures that put her before this Court for sentencing today, but I think the argument from the Government that it was purely a financial motive is simply putting the worst spin on it possible. I think the reality, if you looked at the state of her business, she personally did not profit fran her business in the final years. THE COURT: We have 2016. I am looking at paragraph 89, which you are correct, it locks like afteroo Inn ek wne 10 BB 14 16 17 18 1g 20 21 24 1 2016 locks like she has lost money every year except for 2020. MR. SEARBY: She did, your Honor, and she took -- I believe the nutber is $300,000 from an inheritance and put it in FAC to keep it going. ‘he reason she did that is summed up in the one picture in cur sentencing memo that shows -- in that picture, it is more like Immdreds -- it would came back to Strongsville every year in appreciation and celebration of adopting their children, and she wanted to keep it going. The reality is the Poland program, contrary to the Government's chart, was a small percentage at that point of the fees that they were going to get. And as I understand it from my client, that China and India programs after the Russia programs closed because Russia stopped doing intemational adoptions, not because of any issue involving FAC but the China and India programs dwarfed the Poland program. So I don't believe my Client's motive was trying to get rich. In any event, she comes before this Court at the age of 74 with no prior Criminal History. She lived 70 years of her life without committing an offense for which she was convicted, and as federal courts recognized, that says sanething. She lived a law-abiding life until this©onIinn ek Wn BE 14 16 i 19 BR 24 72 event, and again, she helped so many people. ne of the letters that really resonated with me was the letter written by Mr. Mack's daughter, who is now a captain and adopted from Eastern Europe and a captain in the United States Amy stationed as I understand in Korea pursuing a Masters. She wrote that letter from Korea on her own initiative to emphasize to the Court where would she be but for my client's interests on her behalf. So I think the law is clear that you THE COURT: So the Sentencing Guidelines, do those emphasize the nature of the offense, overemphasizing the background of the offender? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, the question, it was a question the Court put to the Government in same sense, that fraud Guideline puts us in a place that overemphasizes -- THE COURT: What I am inartfully or clumsily going at, doesn't federal sentencing follow Kahn's argument that you punish the crime more so than the offender and does not follow the Benthem argument that punishment should be more forward looking? MR. SEARBY: Your Honor, I believe with the 3553 factors with the Supreme Court's decision in Booker, we reached a point -- and this Court has substantialo©onIinvn es Wd 10 BEB 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 2 73 discretion to decide where this goes, in my day, the Sentencing Guidelines were pretty much where it began and ended, my days with the Government. But no, I believe we should sentence the whole individual. We have in this country a problem of bars. And I think the Court mentioned 28 U.S.C. 944. Yes, that statute may have been a directive £xom Congress to the Sentencing Commission, not to the courts, but it was a recognition on the part of Congress that imposing a sentence of no imprisonment is generally appropriate where you have an individual that cames before the Court with no prior Criminal History, particularly where it is an individual like Ms. Cole who poses no threat to society going forwand. I believe that this Court can fashion a just punishment through various means at the Court's disposal that is a better use of resources and doesn't warshouse another individual behind the bars in the United States who doesn't need to be there. As we have talked about, I think her health issues are significant. I think she needs ongoing medical care. Yes, the federal prison system, I believe it is Butner, but I may have renenbered that wrong, has a medical facility, but I have also had clients and©owrinn er wd eB 4 cooperating witnesses and other individuals over my career that have gone there, and it is not the medical care we would want with an individual who actually has two tutors in her brain, hypertension. ‘The tumors aren't malignant, but she needs to be followed to make sure that doesn't change. She suffers from vertigo, suffers from post traumatic stress disorder, and due to hypertension and her age, she is vulnerable to COVID. Yes, we have vaccines, but as this Court Imows, vaccines give us protection, but they are not fool Proof. We alll know people who have had every vaccine behind bars it is very hard to isolate yourself from other inmates and to protect yourself from infection. So based on all those factors, we would ask the Court to fashion an alternative sentence and vary And a reference was made to the fact that Ms. Longoria received a year and a day. Well, Ms. Longoria, the starting point for her sentence was a level 19. Ms. Cole is at a level 14. I disagree with the Government when they say Ms. Cole is more culpable than Ms. Longoria. I don't believe that that's true. I think that Ms. Longoria ando©oOI none owner 10 i 14 16 as 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 5 Ms. Moran had the direct involvement in the program in Africa. the individual that spoke to the Court today was talking about Africa. Ms. Cole during this stage was withdrawing from day-to-day management. And the Government had the opportumity and certainly the will to charge Ms. Colle with the conduct in Africa as they did these other defendants, and they didn't do it. ‘They had years to make the case and even able to avoid the privilege and read Ms. Cole's cammmications with her lawyers, and still they did not charge her. In fact, they agreed in the plea agreement not to bring further charges. And as I look at the conduct here, setting aside the event which happened, which was not foreseeable to Ms. Cole, was not -- she was not the proximate cause of the ham to the child and however horrible, she was not the one responsible for it. The conduct to me that is most troubling are the allegations in relation to Africa, and I will end what Poland clients said about her because I think she said it well. She said, you know, Ms. Cole was a good person who tried to help her but was a poor manager of People. THE COURT: ‘Thank you. Is there anything you want to say, Ma'am?© oaIinuwe wne BE 14 16 17 20 21 23 24 76 HE DEFENDANT: Okay. Thank you, your Honor, for allowing me to try to explain same of these and why it would never happen in the future. I would like to start with one Mother's Day weekend was as horrible as a mother could have. I woke up to the fact that my baby daughter died in her sleep; SIDS. Baby Alicia's death was the birth of the EAC. My passion and goal was to save the lives of children. This grew to 8,000 orphans celebrating Christmas with their family. I made mistakes wrongfully helping this Poland family. At the time -- and they keep talking about 48 hours -- at the time, there was no law that said you have to do within a certain period. How in 2020 there was a proposed law -- I think the lawyer talked to you about it -- and now ncbody, including myself, would have been able to do or would want to do what I did, and that was the help the lady who asked me for help. The mule is now 24 hours. After you suspect a disruption you report it, central authority, country of original. So if that law would have been there in those days, you know, I wouldn't be here. So anyway, the procedures are different. As far as that medical report, I know I am not supposed to talk about it, but I just sent that medical report over, the Denton medical report© oaInnwe wdne 10 & 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 over to Poland inmediately about total worry about kids being raped in Poland as this little girl was kept in the cage and raped according to the report and according to her own testimony, to somebody here. So therefore, the idea I was hiding it from the Government, I was not hiding. I was reporting to try to get help for the kids over there. Okay? So I am sorry about that that I didn't get the words right. I was short on staff. She was right about the management. All right. Now, I am very -- although I made these serious mistakes in Poland, I am really very sorry for what happened, but lock at the good I did. I worked 24 years as hard as I could work to save as many orphans as possible with my little Alicia angel with me. These children were the joy of my life. My mom worked with the We enjoyed those picnics, and we had a little sign that said, "have you saved the life of a ‘That was a plaque on my wall. Seeing these children and opening the Holiday cards was an event that nobody ever gets in a job. It was a wonderful job. I did not do this for financial gain, except I got a paycheck, but as the lawyer already explained, my last© ori nne wvne 10 78 four years, I basically was a volunteer because my paycheck was about the same as the $300,000 that I donated. I donated that because Russia closed, and we needed a boost. We were working on this India program, which was huge and wonderful. Many young children needed homes, and we recently got a license, so I spent most of my time on that and stepped away from the other and had hired Debra Parris who was a great worker for another agency for 20 years, totally qualified to do the job according to Gladney & Associates. And she also had experience in Africa and damestic adoptions, so I considered it a find because I would not have to worry about that. Your Honor, I have been in commmity confinement since August of 2020. I live in the comtry with my Amish neighbors. I eat in restaurants maybe three times a year. I don't go to malls or crowied places. I am vaccinated for OOID, but I am very afraid that I am not resistant to getting diseases at my age. I have been getting sick and my daughter who is a hospice nurse has taken me to the hospital twice, Novetber and February for things, and then they start scanning my brain and giving me things. So this has been hard on me because of all these problems.oonwinue Wne 10 BB 14 16 sb | 18 19 20 21 24 79 So I beg you to please consider a sentence of some kind of probation or home confinement or whatever is possible as punishment for this case, so I can help my family. My son needs help. We recently planted a garden. He is diabetic and special needs. You know, you xead in the report and the other thing. And so we want to spend time together and hopefully working on improving my health and his. So I would like to put this financially and Physically devastating last five years behind me. I loved the 24 years before that, and I feel very blessed to have had the opportunity to save 8,000 children. Every time I think about it, I smile. You have to smile when you think about those children that you saw at the picnics. So again, I am very sorry for all the harm I caused and by my mistakes I made. And this is not a situation that would ever happen again. As the FAC is closed and no other adoption agency would make that mistake because of the new laws. ‘Thank you, your Honor. THE COURT: I have set the offense level and the Criminal History Category. I also consider the 3553 factors. First among those is the nature and circumstances of the offense. The Defendant founded andoni nnwe Wne 80 xen an adoption consulting agency, which was based in the Northern District of Ohio, but it conducted international adoptions, especially those involving Poland and Uganda during the relevant time periods. ‘The background of the offense was that the Defendant was involved with making false statements and facilitating false statements to the Polish adopting agencies and United States controlling agencies. ‘The Defendant attempted to cover up the transfer of a child that was brought from Poland and then suffered sexual abuse at the hands of sanebody the child should never have been placed with. ‘The location that the child was transferred hhad never undergone a home inspection, and the Defendant skirted over this and misrepresented that the child was going to be housed in Utah. I also consider the Defendant's history and characteristics. She is 74 years of age, Criminal History Category I. She doesn't have any past scorable criminal record. She also does not appear to have any prior arrests. Those factors work to her benefit. She also had operated this agency for a large mumber of years with sane success, both to herself ‘but perhaps more importantly for the mmber of adoptions that she assisted facilitating. This was a business, and