Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MICHELLE MYRTER

)
)
)
)
)

Criminal No. 15-218

GOVERNMENTS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

AND NOW comes the United States of America, by its attorneys, David J.
Hickton, United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, and Tonya Sulia
Goodman, Assistant United States Attorney for said District, and pursuant to this Courts Order,
hereby submits this sentencing memorandum.
On February 26, 2016, the defendant, Michelle Myrter, entered a plea of guilty to a
one-count Information charging her with Aiding and Abetting the Introduction of Misbranded and
Adulterated Food into Interstate Commerce, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections
331(a), 333(a)(1) and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2(a).
A sentencing hearing is presently scheduled for October 11, 2016, before this
Honorable Court. In advance of the sentencing hearing, the government hereby recommends that
the Court impose a Guideline sentence of zero to six months imprisonment. The government
recognizes that because the defendants advisory Guideline range falls within Zone A of the
Sentencing Table, a sentence of imprisonment is not required under the Guidelines. U.S.S.G.
5C1.1(b). The following factors are relevant to the governments recommended sentence for the
defendant in this case.

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 2 of 16

I.

UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES

The United States Supreme Court has instructed, district courts must begin their
[sentencing] analysis with the Guidelines and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing
process. Peugh v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2072, 2083 (2013) (quoting Gall v. United States,
522 U.S. 38, 49 (2007)). Sentencing decisions are to be anchored by the Guidelines, and
appellate courts may presume that guideline sentences are reasonable. Peugh, 133 S.Ct. at 2083.
When considering a non-Guidelines sentence, the Court must consider the extent of the deviation
and ensure that the justification is sufficiently compelling to support the degree of the variance.
Id. (citing Gall, 522 U.S. at 50). For even though the Guidelines are advisory rather than
mandatory, they are . . . the product of careful study based on extensive empirical evidence
derived from the review of thousands of individual sentencing decisions. Gall, 522 U.S. at 47
(citing Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 349 (2007)).
In this case, the Sentencing Guidelines recommend a sentence of imprisonment of
zero to six months for this defendant based upon the seriousness of the offense that she committed
and her lack of a prior criminal history. The advisory Guideline range falls within Zone A of the
Sentencing Table, so a sentence of imprisonment is not required under the Guidelines. U.S.S.G.
5C1.1(b). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(a)(3), the Guideline range for a term of supervised
release is one year. The defendant is eligible for a period of not more than three years probation
under the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. 5B1.2(a)(2). In addition to the mandatory conditions of
probation set forth at U.S.S.G. 5B1.3(a), the Court may impose other conditions of probation
pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5B1.3(b), 5B1.3(e)(3), and 5F1.3. The advisory Guideline range for a fine
is from $250 to $5000. U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(c)(3), 5E1.2(h)(1).

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 3 of 16

As set forth herein, the government believes that the imposition of a sentence
within the advisory Guideline range, including the alternatives available pursuant to U.S.S.G.
5C1.1(b), is the appropriate disposition for the defendant in this case. If the Court imposes a
sentence of probation in this case, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5B1.3(b)(1) and 5B1.3(e)(3), the
government recommends that the Court impose a condition of community service, given that this
offense affected so many members of the community, who, as detailed below, cannot be
personally compensated or redressed in this case. Because the heart of this case involves food
products, the government suggests that community service in a food pantry or soup kitchen may
be particularly appropriate in light of the specific facts and circumstances of this case.
II.

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3553

The factors cited under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553 also support the
governments recommended sentence in this case.
(1)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense

and the history and characteristics of the defendant

Castle Cheese, Inc. (Castle Cheese) is registered with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) as a food manufacturer and distributor. The company manufactures
various types of cheese products which are distributed and sold in interstate commerce throughout
the United States. Castle Cheese is headquartered in Slippery Rock, Pennsylvania, where its food
manufacturing and distribution facilities are located on a large campus consisting of three separate
buildings. According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State, Castle Cheese
was incorporated in 1987. See Exhibit A. George Myrter is identified as the President of Castle
Cheese and Michelle Sabol is identified as the Vice President. 1 Id.

Sabol is the married name of Michelle Myrter. See Presentence Investigation Report (PSR),
3

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 4 of 16

Universal Cheese & Drying, Inc. (Universal) and its sister company,
International Packing, LLC (International Packing) (hereinafter, the Corporate Defendants),
were associated with Castle Cheese and operated out of the Castle Cheese facilities in Slippery
Rock, PA.

All three companies operated under the same management and shared cheese

processing equipment. All employees who processed cheese or otherwise assisted with operations
were officially employed by Castle Cheese, but assisted with the operations of all three
companies. Over the time period of 2010 through 2013, Castle Cheese employed roughly fifty
permanent employees with some additional temporary employees added throughout the years.
According to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State, Universal
was incorporated in 2007. See Exhibit B. George Myrter is identified as the President of
Universal. Id. Also according to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of State,
International Packing was formed in 2009, effective 2010. See Exhibit C. Through her designation
as the trustee for a family trust, Michelle Myrter had an indirect controlling ownership interest in
both Universal and International Packing. Universal had no ownership outside of the Myrter
family, whereas 49% of International Packing was owned by members outside the Myrter family.
The investigation in this case began when the FDA received information that the
Corporate Defendants were selling fake cheese and labeling and marketing it as 100% real cheese.
In response to those allegations, in November 2012, FDA investigators conducted regulatory
inspections at Castle Cheese. Following the FDAs regulatory inspections, on January 15, 2013,
criminal investigatory agents with the FDA and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) executed a
search warrant at the Castle Cheese campus. The criminal investigation ensued thereafter.
The criminal investigation revealed that from 2010 through January 2013, the Corporate
Doc. No. 29, 35. George Myrter is Michelle Myrters father. See id. at 33.
4

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 5 of 16

Defendants dried, chopped, packaged, and sold cheese under various labels at the Castle Cheese facilities.
The cheese was distributed in interstate commerce through retail, food service, and wholesale customers
located throughout the United States. The Corporate Defendants affixed labels to the cheese products and
advertised the cheese products to customers. The labels advertised the cheese as 100% real Parmesan or
Romano cheese. See, e.g. Exhibit D. The Corporate Defendants also marketed the products as 100% real
Parmesan or Romano cheese, and customers paid a premium, believing that they were purchasing a
superior, higher quality product. The cheese, however, was nothing more than imitation cheese, which
contained little, if any, Parmesan or Romano cheese. The motive for doing so was simple it was less
costly for the Corporate Defendants to produce cheap, fake cheese while customers paid premium
prices for real cheese. The Corporate Defendants reaped the benefit of the difference between the
lower costs and the higher revenue. The Corporate Defendants then used the profits earned
through this fraud to continue their operations. The government and the Corporate Defendants
have stipulated that the loss attributed to this fraud totals $1,000,000.
The FDA is the agency of the United States charged with protecting the American
public by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301 et
seq., to ensure, among other things, that food sold for human use is safe and bears labeling
containing true and accurate information. Although the cheese at issue here was not unsafe for
human consumption, the Corporate Defendants were aware of all relevant FDA rules and
regulations and knew that the labels affixed to the cheese products did not contain true and
accurate information. Despite this knowledge, for a period of three years, the Corporate
Defendants delivered this fake product into the market in clear violation of 21 U.S.C. 331(a).
The Corporate Defendants actions violated the laws of the United States, but more particularly,
violated the FDCA. The FDA, as the federal agency charged with enforcing the provisions of the

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 6 of 16

FDCA, has patently suffered harm in this case. As such, the FDAs forfeiture of $1,000,000 of the
Corporate Defendants proceeds from the offense is appropriate in this case and is authorized
under the law pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. 2461.
The IRS Criminal Investigation Division has jurisdiction to investigate violations
of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a), Engaging in Monetary Transactions in Property Derived from Specified
Unlawful Activity. The Corporate Defendants used the profits obtained through this fraud to
continue the cheese processing operations. The quick collapse of both International Packing and
Universal following the FDAs investigation and this prosecution reveals the core of the fraud.
The Corporate Defendants could not earn a profit without using ingredients that were cheaper than
the real ingredients necessary to make 100% Parmesan and Romano cheese. After the FDA
intervened and the Corporate Defendants were forced to begin using real ingredients, their
profitability plummeted. The PSRs for the Corporate Defendants reveal the stark contrast between
the Corporate Defendants gross profits during the time that the imitation ingredients were used,
beginning in 2010, and the gross profits following the initiation of the FDAs investigation in
2013. See PSR for International Packing, Doc. No. 32, at Criminal No. 15-217, 25; PSR for
Universal, Doc. No. 29, at Criminal No. 15-219, 25. By 2014, the Corporate Defendants were
actually operating at a loss and had to cease operations. Id. The 2014 financial data clearly reveals
that the Corporate Defendants were using proceeds of the fraud to continue the operation of the
business, in clear violation of 18 U.S.C. 1957(a). This is a statute which the IRS has jurisdiction
to enforce. As such, the IRSs forfeiture of $1,000,000 of the Corporate Defendants proceeds
from the offense is appropriate in this case and is authorized under the law pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
981(a)(1)(C) and 28 U.S.C. 2461.
The PSRs for International Packing and Universal likewise reveal that the

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 7 of 16

Corporate Defendants do not have the ability to pay fines in this case. Both companies have
ceased operations and, therefore, no longer have the ability to generate revenue. Pursuant to law,
forfeiture of $1,000,000 to the FDA and IRS is authorized, and pursuant to the plea agreements in
this case, the Corporate Defendants have agreed to forfeit that amount to the United States.
Although the Corporate Defendants each have some assets, the companies liabilities exceed the
value of their assets. See PSR for International Packing, Doc. No. 32, at Criminal No. 15-217,
26-27; PSR for Universal, Doc. No. 29, at Criminal No. 15-219, 26-27. The Corporate
Defendants sister company, Castle Cheese, is in Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. See
Bankruptcy Petition No. 14-22214-JAD, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania. Castle Cheese guaranteed the obligations of Universal to FirstMerit Bank.
Universals assets, therefore, may be subject to liquidation as part of Castle Cheeses bankruptcy
proceedings. See PSR for Universal, Doc. No. 29, at Criminal No. 15-219, 21. For all of these
reasons, and based upon the information known to the government, the United States believes that
the Corporate Defendants do not have the ability to pay fines as part of the companies sentences
in this case.
The evidence in this case revealed beyond doubt that the cheese packaged and
processed by the Corporate Defendants was imitation cheese; that the Corporate Defendants
labeled and advertised the cheese as real; and that the fraud had gone on for several years. As one
very clear example, during the FDAs regulatory inspection on November 14, 2012, FDA
investigators observed pallets of jars of grated Parmesan cheese which were ready for shipment to
a customer. The labeling for this cheese described the product as, Freshly Grated Parmesan,
100% Real Grated Parmesan, No Fillers. However, examinations of the Cook Log, Dry
Sheet, and Trim Report for the batch of cheese revealed the truth the cheese that was jarred

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 8 of 16

and ready for shipment as 100% real Parmesan cheese actually contained no Parmesan cheese at
all. Over the course of several years from 2010 through 2013, hundreds of thousands of pounds of
similar fake cheese was distributed by the Corporate Defendants with similar false labels.
Although the government does not contend that defendant Michelle Myrter
personally combined the ingredients to make the fake cheese or poured the fake cheese into jars
and labeled it herself, she was the most responsible and highest level officer physically present at
the Castle Cheese campus for the time period in question and handled nearly all the managerial
functions during that time. Defendant Myrters plea of guilty was entered pursuant the Park
Doctrine, a well-established legal construct in FDCA cases. To establish liability for violations of
Title 21, United States Code, Sections 331(a) and 333(a)(1) under the Park Doctrine, knowledge
of the wrongdoing need not be shown, the government needs only to prove that the defendant was
in responsible relation to the alleged violation. United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277,
280-81 (1943); United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). The Supreme Court has repeatedly
confirmed that the FDCA is a public welfare and consumer protection statute that imposes
criminal penalties even in the absence of criminal intent, knowledge, or awareness of wrongdoing.
Park, 421 U.S. at 672 (1975); United States v. Wiesenfeld Warehouse Co., 376 U.S. 86, 91
(1964); Dotterweich, 320 U.S. at 280-81; See also Smith v. California, 361 U.S. 147, 152 (1959).
In short, under the law, Michelle Myrter pled guilty to a strict liability offense. The
statute imposes criminal liability on persons who bear a responsible share in furthering criminal
conduct because, by virtue of their positions in the company, they had the responsibility and
authority either to prevent the violations in the first instance, or promptly to correct the violations,
and failed to do so. United States v. Park, 421 U.S. at 673-74. This liability attaches without
regard to whether such persons were unaware of, or did not directly participate in, the unlawful

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 9 of 16

activity. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. at 285-86; Park, 421 U.S. at 670. see also United States v.
Cassaro Inc. 443 F.2d 153, 157 (1st Cir. 1971) (conviction of bakery manager for violation of the
FDCA upheld despite evidence that he was out sick at the time the inspection revealed unsanitary
conditions); United States v. Parfait Powderpuff Co., Inc., 163 F.2d 1008 (7th Cir. 1947)
(corporate defendant convicted for violating the FDCA even though an independent contractor
substituted a prohibited ingredient in violation of a contractual provision and without defendants
knowledge), cert. denied, 332 U.S. 851 (1948).
The governments investigation in this case revealed beyond doubt that by virtue of
her positions in Castle Cheese, International Packing, and Universal, Michelle Myrter had the
responsibility and authority either to prevent the violations in the first instance, or promptly to
correct the violations, and failed to do so. Defendant Myrter herself acknowledged as much during
the FDAs regulatory inspection in November 2012. During the inspection, defendant Myrter
conceded to FDA investigators that she was the most responsible person at all three companies.
She identified herself as the President of Castle Cheese and the Vice President of both Universal
and International Packing. On federal tax returns for the years 2011 through 2014, Michelle
Myrter is identified as the representative for International Packing. See PSR for International
Packing, Doc. No. 32, at Criminal No. 15-217, 21. Significantly, Michelle Myrter is serving as
the authorized representative for both International Packing and Universal in these proceedings
and she signed the plea agreements as the authorized representative on behalf of both
companies in this case.
During the FDAs inspection in November 2012, Michelle Myrter informed the
investigators that her duties and responsibilities for the three companies included: purchasing,
management of production operations, human resource management, and whatever else needs to

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 10 of 16

be done. Defendant Myrter had the authority to make and approve expenditures and to hire and
fire employees. Importantly, defendant Myrter acknowledged that she was also responsible for
both purchasing raw ingredients and receiving orders from customers. This is significant because
the Corporate Defendants lacked the necessary raw ingredients to make real Parmesan and
Romano cheese. As someone responsible for purchasing those very ingredients, defendant Myrter
was certainly in responsible relation to the Corporate Defendants violations of the FDCA. See
Dotterweich, 320 U.S. at 280-81.
Defendant Myrter has no prior arrests or convictions. To her credit, she has
accepted responsibility and pled guilty to this offense, saving the government time, money, and
resources. The defendant certainly has benefited through the terms of her plea agreement. Most
significantly, the defendant benefitted from the governments agreement to recommend to the
Court that the base offense level not be adjusted under Section 2N2.1(c)(1) of the Sentencing
Guidelines. Given those factors, the advisory Guideline range resulting from the application of the
terms of the plea agreement in this case reflects the appropriate punishment for the defendant in
this case in light of the nature and circumstances of this offense and the history and characteristics
of this defendant.
(2)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(A) the need for the sentence imposed to reflect

the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law and to
provide just punishment for the offense

At first blush, the seriousness of this offense might not be readily apparent. The
value of FDCA prosecutions is more clearly evident in cases where adulterated food or drugs pose
a threat to the health or safety of consumers. Although no consumers were physically harmed, or
in danger of physical harm, as a result of the defendants actions in this case, the conduct is no
less concerning consumers purchased the defendants products believing they contained the

10

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 11 of 16

ingredients advertised, when, in fact, the products contained other ingredients entirely. Given her
positions with all three companies, the defendant was undoubtedly familiar with the FDAs rules
and regulations concerning product labeling and food adulteration. Her failure to ensure that the
Corporate Defendants complied with these regulations demonstrates a clear lack of respect for the
law. A Guideline sentence in this case will promote respect for the law and will provide just
punishment for this serious offense.
18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(B) the need for the sentence imposed to afford
adequate deterrence to criminal conduct
A Guideline sentence is also necessary in this case to adequately deter others from
committing this type of offense. Food mislabeling and adulteration cases are very difficult for the
FDA to police and detect. The FDA relies upon the integrity of food manufacturers and
distributors to put food safety ahead of company profits. As this case demonstrates, however, the
substitution of one simple ingredient has the capability to drastically change profits. The incentive
to make such substitutions can be great while the detection of such substitutions requires
significant time and resources. Adequate deterrence, therefore, is paramount. To adequately deter
others from committing this type of offense, a Guideline sentence is necessary in this case.
18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(2)(C) the need for the sentence imposed to
protect the public from further crimes of the defendant
The defendant does not have any prior convictions. However, this was a fraud that
continued for many years under her watch. A Guideline sentence is necessary in this case to deter
the defendant from engaging in this type of conduct in connection with any future business
endeavors she may undertake.

11

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 12 of 16

(3)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(3) the kinds of sentences available

Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 331(a) and 333(a)(1), the maximum term of

imprisonment is one year. The Court may, but is not required, to impose a term of supervised
release of not more than one year. 18 U.S.C. 3583(b)(3). Because the offense of conviction is a
misdemeanor, the Court may impose a term of probation of up to five years. 18 U.S.C.
3561(c)(2). The Court may impose a fine of not more than $100,000 pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
3571(b)(5).
(4)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(4)(A) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing

range established by the applicable category of offense committed by
the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines

The government concurs with the calculations set forth in the PSR. The base
offense level is 6. The base offense level should be reduced by two levels for the defendants
acceptance of responsibility. U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a). The defendants total offense level is 4 and
her criminal history category is I. The advisory Guideline range is, therefore, zero to six months
imprisonment in Zone A of the Sentencing Table. Because the advisory Guideline range falls
within Zone A of the Sentencing Table, a sentence of imprisonment is not required under the
Guidelines. U.S.S.G. 5C1.1(b). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 5D1.2(a)(3), the Guideline range for a
term of supervised release is one year. The defendant is eligible for a period of not more than
three years probation under the Guidelines. U.S.S.G. 5B1.2(a)(2). The advisory Guideline range
for a fine is from $250 to $5000. U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(c)(3), 5E1.2(h)(1).
(5)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(5) any pertinent policy statement

The following policy statement is pertinent to the governments recommendation

that community service be imposed as a condition of any sentence of probation the Court may
order. U.S.S.G. 5B1.3(e)(3) provides,

12

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 13 of 16

Additional Conditions (Policy Statement)

The following special conditions may be appropriate on a case-by-case
basis:
...
(3) Community Service
Community service may be imposed as a condition of probation. See
5F1.3 (Community Service).
Consistent with Guideline policy, the government recommends that
community service be imposed as a condition of any sentence of probation the Court may
order for defendant Myrter.
(6)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence

disparities among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct

Given the facts and circumstances of this case, a Guideline sentence is necessary to
avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities in cases involving violations of laws designed to protect
consumers and the public.
(7)

18 U.S.C. 3553(a)(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims

of the offense

Pursuant to provisions of the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), 18

U.S.C. 3663A, restitution is not applicable in this case.
The MVRA provides, in pertinent part,
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant
convicted of an offense described in subsection (c), the court shall order,
in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of,
any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to
the victim of the offense or, if the victim is deceased, to the victims
estate.
For the purposes of this section, the term victim means a person directly
and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for

13

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 14 of 16

which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that

involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal
activity, any person directly harmed by the defendants criminal conduct in
the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. . . .
18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1), 3663A(a)(2). The MVRA applies in all sentencing proceedings for
convictions of, or plea agreements relating to charges for, any offense that is,
. . . an offense against property under this title, or under section 416(a) of
the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 856(a)), including any offense
committed by fraud or deceit . . . and
in which an identifiable victim or victims has suffered a physical injury or
pecuniary loss.
18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(1)(A)(ii) and 3663A(c)(1)(B) (emphasis added). The Sentencing
Guidelines likewise provide for the payment of restitution only to identifiable victims. See
U.S.S.G. 5E2.2(a).
In this case, the government has no means of identifying the victims of the
Corporate Defendants fraud. There are, therefore, no identifiable victims for purposes of the
MVRA or the Sentencing Guidelines. The Corporate Defendants customers who purchased the
misbranded and adulterated cheese products in this case were food retailers, food wholesalers, or
other similar entities involved in the food distribution chain. None of the Corporate Defendants
customers were the ultimate end-users or consumers of the cheese products. The Corporate
Defendants food distribution customers purchased the cheese products at a premium, believing
the products to be real cheese. Because of that belief, the food distribution customers also charged
their own customers, the end-users, a premium for the products. The ultimate victims of the
Corporate Defendants offense, therefore, were the end-users who purchased the cheese products
for consumption. Those consumers purchased the products at a premium, believing they were
buying real Parmesan or Romano cheese. Instead, the consumers purchased only imitation cheese,

14

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 15 of 16

which was not worth the price they paid for it, and which did not contain the ingredients
advertised.
The cheese products distributed by the Corporate Defendants were sold all over the
country through various retail outlets to end-user consumers. These retail outlets included large,
discount department stores and grocery stores. The end-user consumers who may have purchased
the Corporate Defendants cheese products likely number in the hundreds of thousands and the
United States has no means of individually identifying those consumers. The cheese products are
no longer available for sale and have not been for several years. There is no means, therefore, for
the government to identify the victims of this offense pursuant to provisions of the MVRA.
Even if the government had been able to identify the victims of this offense, the
MVRA does not apply where the court finds that,
the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution
impracticable; or
determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the
victim's losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a
degree that the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by
the burden on the sentencing process.
18 U.S.C. 3663A(c)(3)(A), (c)(3)(B). Therefore, even if the United States had been able to
identify the victims in this case, the number of identifiable victims would be so large as to make
restitution impracticable. Moreover, determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or
amount of the victims losses would complicate or prolong the sentencing process to a degree that
the need to provide restitution to any victim is outweighed by the burden on the sentencing
process.

15

Case 2:15-cr-00218-MRH Document 34 Filed 10/04/16 Page 16 of 16

In light of the foregoing, the government submits that restitution is not applicable
in this case, and the government recommends that the Court not order the defendant to pay
restitution as part of her sentence in this case.
III.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for all of the reasons cited herein, the government respectfully
recommends that the Court impose a Guideline sentence of zero to six months imprisonment in
this case. The government recognizes that because the defendants advisory Guideline range falls
within Zone A of the Sentencing Table, a sentence of imprisonment is not required under the
Guidelines. U.S.S.G. 5C1.1(b). If the Court imposes a sentence of probation, the government
recommends that the Court order community service as a condition of probation.
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID J. HICKTON
United States Attorney

s/Tonya Sulia Goodman

TONYA SULIA GOODMAN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorneys Office
700 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 894-7340
Tonya.goodman@usdoj.gov
PA ID No. 204724

16