USA v. Withrow et al

R&R re Plea of Guilty
United States v. Jackson
Case No. 3:21-cr-00109-SLG-KFR
Page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRUCE ARTHUR JACKSON
a/k/a “Bruce Baker”,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:21-cr-00109-SLG-KFR
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE UPON
A PLEA OF GUILTY
Upon Defendant's request to enter a guilty plea pursuant to Rule 11 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to Count 1 of the Indictment, Conspiracy to
Commit Depredation Against Property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§371, this matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge by the District Court.
Thereafter, the matter came on for a hearing on Defendant’s guilty plea, in
full compliance with Rule 11, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, before the
Magistrate Judge, in open court and on the record. 	At the change of plea hearing,
the Magistrate Court advised Defendant of his right to proceed with his change of
plea before the District Court; Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived that
right on the record. 	A written consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge,
which had been signed by Defendant and provided to the government, but not yet
signed and filed by the government prior to the hearing, was subsequently filed.
In consideration of that hearing and the allocution made by Defendant under
oath on the record and in the presence of counsel, and the remarks of the Assistant
United States Attorney,
//
Case 3:21-cr-00109-TMB-KFR Document 56 Filed 05/13/22 Page 1 of 5

R&R re Plea of Guilty
United States v. Jackson
Case No. 3:21-cr-00109-SLG-KFR
Page 2
A. 	I make the following FINDINGS – that Defendant understands:
1. 	That any false statements made by Defendant under oath may later be
used against him in a prosecution for perjury;
2. The right to persist in a plea of “not guilty”;
3. 	The consequences of a finding of guilty if he is not a United States
citizen;
4. The nature of the charges against him;
5. 	The maximum possible sentence, including imprisonment, fine, and the
effect of the supervised release term,
6. Any applicable mandatory minimum penalty;
7. 	The Court’s authority to order restitution;
8. The Court’s obligation to impose a special assessment;
9. Any applicable forfeiture;
10. The right to a speedy and public trial by jury;
11. The right to be represented by counsel – and if necessary to have the
Court appoint counsel – at trial and at every other stage of the
proceedings;
12. The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, to be
protected from compelled self-incrimination, to testify and present
evidence, and to compel the attendance of witnesses;
13. Defendant’s waiver of trial rights if the Court accepts a guilty plea or
nolo contendere;
14. That Defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his
right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and any sentence
imposed if it is within the range permitted by the plea agreement; and
15. That in determining a sentence, the Court’s obligation to calculate the
applicable sentencing guideline range and to consider that range,
Case 3:21-cr-00109-TMB-KFR Document 56 Filed 05/13/22 Page 2 of 5

R&R re Plea of Guilty
United States v. Jackson
Case No. 3:21-cr-00109-SLG-KFR
Page 3
possible 	departures 	under 	the 	Sentencing 	Guidelines, 	and 	other
sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
B. 	I further FIND that:
1. 	Defendant is competent to enter a plea;
2. That 	the 	plea 	of 	guilty 	by 	Defendant 	has 	been 	knowingly 	and
voluntarily made and is not the result of force or threats or coercion;
3. 	Any agreements or promises which induced the plea of guilty are set
forth in the written plea agreement or on the record; and
4. That there is a sufficient factual basis for Defendant’s plea. This factual
basis includes Defendant’s admission under oath that the cost of the
damage caused by his actions was greater than $1,000, thereby making
his crime a felony. 	In support of the finding that there is a sufficient
factual basis for the plea, I note that one of the elements of the offense
to which Defendant pled guilty is that he conspired to damage United
States property. 	While the factual basis does not specifically state
Defendant’s 	actions 	damaged 	United 	States 	property, 	Defendant’s
admission that as part of his conspiracy they “contaminat[ed] the
ground with the oily-tar-like contents” that had been dumped on
United States’ government property meets this element. Contaminate
means “to soil, stain, corrupt, or infect by contact or association.”
“Contaminate.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contaminate.
Accessed 5 May. 2022; see also United States v. Jenkins, 554 F.2d 783,
785-86 (8th Cir. 1977) (relying on dictionary to define depredation as
“the act or an instance of robbing, plundering, or laying waste.”)
Contaminating a surface by dumping 15 55-gallon drums containing an
“oily, tar-like substance,” thereby soiling, staining, corrupting, or
infecting the property such that more than $1,000 was spent to clean
Case 3:21-cr-00109-TMB-KFR Document 56 Filed 05/13/22 Page 3 of 5

R&R re Plea of Guilty
United States v. Jackson
Case No. 3:21-cr-00109-SLG-KFR
Page 4
and rehabilitate the area satisfies any definition of damage. 	Accord
United States v. Wasson, 838 Fed.Appx. 272 (9th Cir. 2021) (not
reported) (holding that the dumping of vegetable oil, which required
the expenditure of costs to remove the oil and contaminated soil upon
which it was poured, along with the clearing of trees and vegetation,
was 	sufficient 	evidence 	of 	willful 	depredation 	of 	government
property.”)
C. 	I RECOMMEND that the District Court accept Defendant’s plea of
guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment, Conspiracy to Commit Depredation Against
Property of the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371. As part of the plea
agreement, the United States agrees to recommend five (5) years of probation.
Consistent with this recommendation, the United States may seek, if applicable
under 	the 	United 	States 	Sentencing 	Commission 	Guidelines, 	a 	condition 	that
Defendant serve some community confinement as part of his sentence.
The parties also agree that the Court should impose as part of its sentence
joint and several restitution between Bruce Arthur Jackson and James Darren
Withrow in the amount of $88,ooo, that sum being made payable to the National
Forest Service for cleanup costs related to this criminal act. The Government agrees
to dismiss Count 2 of the Indictment at the time of sentencing.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
D. 	A Presentence Report be prepared.
1. 	Any objection(s) to the presentence report shall be filed no later than
fourteen (14) days after receiving the presentence report pursuant to
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(f)(1).
2. Any sentencing memorandum shall be filed no later than seven (7)
business days prior to sentencing pursuant to D.Ak. L.Cr.R. 32.1(d).
Case 3:21-cr-00109-TMB-KFR Document 56 Filed 05/13/22 Page 4 of 5

R&R re Plea of Guilty
United States v. Jackson
Case No. 3:21-cr-00109-SLG-KFR
Page 5
The Sentencing hearing will be held before United States District Judge
Sharon L. Gleason on August 5, 2022, at 10:00 a.m. The Court excludes time from
April 29, 2022, until the time of sentencing pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(G) on
the ground that the District Judge will be considering the proposed plea agreement.
DATED this 12th day of May 2022, at Anchorage, Alaska.
s/ Kyle F. Reardon
KYLE F. REARDON
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Alaska
This Report and Recommendation is being issued as a Final Report and
Recommendation. 	Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim P. 59(b)(3), any objections will be
considered by the District Court Judge who will accept, reject, or modify the
recommendation following de novo review. 	Any objections must be filed within
seven (7) days from the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2) and D.Ak.L.M.R. 6(a) authorizes the Court to alter the standard
objection deadlines.
Reports and recommendations are not appealable orders. 	Any notice of
appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should not be filed until entry of the
District Court’s judgment. See Hilliard v. Kincheloe, 796 F.2d 308 (9th Cir. 1986).
Case 3:21-cr-00109-TMB-KFR Document 56 Filed 05/13/22 Page 5 of 5