Professional Documents
Culture Documents
v.
Criminal No: TDC-18-0011
TRANSPORT LOGISTICS
INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ORDER
The United States and Defendant Transport Logistics International, Inc. ("TLI") have
jointly moved for the exclusion of time from the period during which trial must occur under the
Speedy Trial Act. See 18 U.S.C. S 3162(h)(2) (2012). The Court may exclude "[a]ny period of
delay during which prosecution is deferred by the attorney for the Government pursuant to
written agreement with the defendant, with the approval of the court, for the purpose of allowing
of the Information through the completion of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DP A")
between TLI and the United States, as represented by the Fraud Section of the United States
Department of Justice, Criminal Division, and the United States Attorney's Office for the
District of Maryland. In the DPA, the parties agree that the prosecution and trial of the charges
contained in the Information in this matter will be deferred for the purpose of allowing TLI to
demonstrate its good conduct, until whichever of the following events occurs first:
1. The United States makes a final determination that TLI has made a willful,
knowing, and material breach of the DP A, as defined therein, and the United States elects,
Case 8:18-cr-00011-TDC Document 10 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 3
consistent with the DP A, to prosecute TLI on the Information, in which event the United States
2. The United States concludes that TLI is in full compliance with all of its
obligations under the DPA, and the United States, within 30 calendar days after the expiration of
the term of the DPA, as defined in the DPA, files a motion with the Court seeking dismissal with
The Court notes that a deferred prosecution agreement confers a substantial benefit on a
company for which there is probable cause to charge it with a crime. It should be reserved for
companies that have engaged in extraordinary cooperation and have entirely rid themselves of all
remnants of the prior criminal activity. Here, the Government has represented that TLI fully
cooperated in the investigation, that the Government has filed charges against the two principal
executives of the company, and that one of those executives has already been convicted. At the
same time, the corporation did not self-report the violations, and there remain members of the
Board of Directors who oversaw, or failed to oversee, the company during the time period of the
fraud. Particularly when a very high percentage of the company's business consists of the same
type of uranium transportation work that was secured through fraudulent means, and the DP A
calls for TLI to pay a criminal penalty that is less than 10 percent of the amount contemplated by
the Sentencing Guidelines, there is a risk that a DPA under these circumstances will provide
insufficient deterrence to companies which otherwise would permit fraud, or fail to prevent
However, the Court's authority to take action other than approval of the DPA appears to
be very limited. Although the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not
interpreted the requirement for "approval of the court" under 18 U.S.C. S 3161(h)(2), the United
2
Case 8:18-cr-00011-TDC Document 10 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 3
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the district court may
not "impose its own views about the adequacy of the underlying criminal charges" and may only
fail to approve a DPA if it is not "geared to enabling the defendant to demonstrate compliance
with the law" and is instead "a pretext intended merely to evade the Speedy Trial Act's time
constraints." United States v. Fokker Servs. B. V, 818 F.3d 733, 744 (D.C. Cir. 2016). Under
this standard, the Court must approve the DPA and grant the motion.
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that, for the reasons stated at the March 12, 2018
hearing and in this Order, the period of time outlined above shall be excluded in computing the
time within which an indictment must be filed, or the time within which the trial of the charged
this Order no time has elapsed under the Speedy Trial Act.