Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 1 of 8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

MARIO VILLEGAS-VARGAS
Defendant.

UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM ON SENTENCING

This investigation has revealed a scheme in which private business owners enticed

public officials in municipalities across Puerto Rico to accept cash in exchange for municipal

contracts. One of the central contracting companies that earned municipal contracts through

these bribe payments was J.R. Asphalt, Inc., an asphalt removal and pavement business

owned and operated by Defendant Mario Villegas.1 Mr. Villegas paid large sums of cash to

the mayor of Cataño and others in exchange for lucrative paving projects. He has pleaded

guilty to conspiracy to commit federal funds bribery. The Court must now determine his

sentence.

An elected official’s public trust should not be for sale to the highest bidder. The

Government recommends that the Court send a strong message of deterrence to business

owners like Mr. Villegas who engage in secretive, quid pro quo arrangements with the officials

that Puerto Rico’s citizens have entrusted with public office. An appropriate sentence is fifty-

seven (57) months of imprisonment and a term of supervised release of two (2) years. Such a

sentence accounts for the seriousness of the offense, the scope of Mr. Villegas’s bribery

1
J.R. Asphalt, Inc. was also owned and operated by Individual B, who pleaded guilty and is
awaiting sentencing.
1
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 2 of 8

scheme, and the need to provide an adequate deterrent for future public officials and

contractors. This sentencing recommendation further reflects Mr. Villegas’s acceptance of

responsibility and lack of criminal history.

I. Overview of the Case

In 2020, cooperating witnesses provided information about a kickback arrangement

that Mr. Villegas entered with Individual A, the mayor of Cataño. As outlined in the plea

agreement, the arrangement dated back to 2017, and Mr. Villegas’ bribe payments specifically

included:

 a cash payment in the amount of $70,000 (pictured below) on December 14,

2020;

 a cash payment in the amount of $7,840 on February 2, 2021; and

 a cash payment in the amount of $17,000.00 on June 8, 2021.

Mr. Villegas made these payments secretly and encouraged Individual A to engage in

behavior to conceal their corrupt bargain. For example, on December 14, 2020, when Mr.

2
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 3 of 8

Villegas made the payment of cash pictured above to Individual A, they met in Mr. Villegas’

tinted-windowed vehicle in a McDonald’s parking lot. At the outset of the meeting, Mr.

Villegas encouraged Individual A to use disposable phones, and offered to provide them

himself:

Villegas: “I could bring you ten if you want, five. I know that he sells them to thugs
and all that shit and then they change the chip, but he tells me to throw the whole
phone away. This has a chip and the guys [UI]—

Individual A: “Yes, but that--that it can--that you can break it and fuck it.”

Villegas: “That costs 20--five bucks. You take this, use it--Make four calls, you know,
tear it up and throw it there, in the water. It should always be underwater.”2

After handing Individual A the $70,000 in cash, Mr. Villegas then confirmed that he fulfilled

his end of the quid pro quo in relation to a paving project in one neighborhood of Cataño,

noting “[t]hat squares away all of Cucharilla.”

In total, Mr. Villegas and his business partner, Individual B, paid more than $95,000

in bribe payments to Individual A. Further, numerous other public officials have pleaded

guilty to receiving bribe and kickback payments in exchange for beneficial treatment towards

Mr. Villegas’ company, J.R. Asphalt. See, e.g., United States v. Javier Garcia-Perez, 22-185

(ADC) (former mayor of Aguas Buenas); United States v. Eduardo Cintron-Suarez, 22-151 (SCC)

(former mayor of Guayama); United States v. Ramon Conde-Melendez, 22-221 (PAD) (former

Director of Public Works in Guayama); United States v. Pedro Miranda-Marrero, 22-251 (RAM)

(former Director of Public Works in Cataño); United States v. Jose Cruz-Cruz, 22-276 (SCC)

(former mayor of Trujillo Alto). Mr. Villegas’ corrupting influence casts a long shadow in

this district.

2
This excerpt has been translated from Spanish to English.

3
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 4 of 8

II. Guideline Calculations

a. The Advisory Guidelines Range

It is well established that a court should consider a variety of factors in imposing a

sentence on a criminal defendant, including the applicable range established by the

Guidelines. 18 U.S.C. § 3553. Although the Guidelines are advisory in nature, courts “must

consult those Guidelines and take them into account when sentencing.” United States v.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 264 (2005). A sentencing court thus begins by calculating the applicable

guidelines range, which serves as “the starting point and the initial benchmark.” Gall v. United

States, 552 U.S. 38, 49 (2007); see also Nelson v. United States, 555 U.S. 350, 351 (2009) (noting

that a sentencing court “must first calculate the Guidelines range”).

The court then must consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a),

including the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of

the defendant. See Nelson, 555 U.S. at 351 (explaining that after the court determines the

applicable guidelines sentencing range, it must “consider what sentence is appropriate for the

individual defendant in light of the statutory sentencing factors”).

The United States and the defendant have proposed the following advisory guidelines

as part of the Plea Agreement. (ECF No. 46, p. 4.):

Sentencing Guidelines Calculations

Base Offense Level: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(a)(2): Defendant not a

2
Involving One or More Bribe: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(1)

4
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 5 of 8

Value of the Bribe exceeded $95,000.00: U.S.S.G.

Involved Elected Public Official: U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(3) 4

Acceptance of Responsibility: U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 -3

23
TOTAL ADJUSTED OFFENSE LEVEL

The proposed guidelines are identical to the guideline range calculated by the

probation office (ECF No. 48, pp. 9-10.) These proposed guidelines contained in the Plea

Agreement would result in a sentencing range of 46-57 months of imprisonment.

b. The Section 3553(a) Factors

The advisory guidelines range is only one of several factors that this Court must

consider when imposing a sentence consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). See Kimbrough v.

United States, 552 U.S. 85, 90 (2007) (noting that guidelines ranges “serve as one factor among

several courts must consider”). The United States therefore addresses several § 3553(a) factors

that are of particular significance in this case.

1. The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1))

The nature and circumstances of Mr. Villegas’ conduct require a serious and

meaningful punishment. Mr. Villegas made blatant cash kickback payments, literally handing

an elected mayor a bag of cash in exchange for contract work. There is no indication that

Mr. Villegas would have ceased making such payments had he not been caught. Corruption

of this nature has a corrosive effect on citizens’ confidence that their elected officials act with
5
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 6 of 8

fidelity to the public’s best interest. At the same time, Mr. Villegas has no previous criminal

history and he has run a successful business. A sentence of fifty-seven months punishes his

unacceptable criminal conduct while also accounting for his lack of criminal history.

2. 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 (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)); and the need for the sentence imposed
to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct (18 U.S.C. §
3553(a)(2)(B))

“When it comes to political corruption, the community—historically and presently—

requires that real, tangible, and severe consequences meet those who gain a position of public

trust and then abuse that trust for personal gain.” United States v. Sorenson, 233 F. Supp. 3d

690, 699 (S.D. Iowa), aff’d, 705 F. App’x 481 (8th Cir. 2017). A meaningful term of

incarceration is required to promote respect for our anti-corruption laws and to restore faith

in the integrity of government. “Deterrence is a crucial factor in sentencing decisions for

economic and public corruption crimes.” United States v. Morgan, 635 F. App’x 423, 450 (10th

Cir. 2015). The sentence in this case should be sufficiently serious to deter business owners

from engaging in backroom, kickback arrangements with public officials that undermine

government and fair competition. The need for general deterrence is particularly important

here, because such quid pro quo arrangements are notoriously difficult for law enforcement

to detect. See, e.g., Sorenson, 233 F. Supp. 3d at 699.

In addition to promoting respect for anti-corruption laws and deterring

individuals from engaging in such corrupt behavior, strict sentences also serve to protect the

public from further harm. Mr. Villegas and others who pay elected officials to abuse their

positions of trust must receive appropriately serious punishment, which is “[t]he only way to

protect the public from the ongoing problem of public corruption and to promote respect for

6
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 7 of 8

the rule of law.” United States v. Spano, 411 F. Supp 2d 923, 940 (N.D. Ill), aff’d, 447 F.3d 517

(7th Cir. 2006).

3. The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with

District courts are to consider the need to avoid unwarranted disparities when imposing

sentence. See 18 U.S.C. §3553(a)(6). “Under this instruction, district courts must take account

of sentencing practices in other courts.” Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 108. “Indeed, one of the

purposes of the Guidelines is to maintain national uniformity in sentences.” United States v.

Simmons, 501 F.3d 620, 626 (6th Cir. 2007). District courts court routinely impose, and the

First Circuit routinely approves, significant periods of incarceration for cases involving

bribery. See, e.g., United States v. Acevedo-Hernández, 898 F.3d 150, 171-72 (1st Cir. 2018)

(affirming 120-month sentence for defendant judge convicted of accepting bribes at trial,

where defendant argued he only received $63,380 in bribes but sentencing judge noted he

would have imposed the same sentence regardless of whether certain adjustments were

proper); United States v. Ciresi, 697 F.3d 19, 31-32 (1st Cir. 2012) (affirming 63-month sentence

of defendant after conviction at trial for paying $70,000 to $120,000 in bribes to a local

official); United States v. Del Valle-Colon, 20-260 (SCC), ECF No. 166 and 123, p. 4 (D.P.R.,

Sept. 7, 2022) (former member of the Puerto Rico House of Representatives with adjusted

offense level of 25 sentenced to fifty-seven months for his role in a bribery and kickback

scheme).

Unlike Acevedo-Hernández and Del Valle-Colon, Mr. Villegas was not the public

official receiving the bribe, but rather the private businessman paying it. As the Court

considers Mr. Villegas’ sentence, the Government respectfully requests that it consider that a

business owner willing to pay for a betrayal of the public trust is the prerequisite for the elected

7
 Case 3:21-cr-00468-FAB Document 58 Filed 02/15/23 Page 8 of 8

official willing to commit it. Simply stated, “it takes two to tango.” A sentence of 57 months

of imprisonment here will put would-be bribe payors on notice that they, too, expose

themselves to lengthy prison sentences if they are caught.

III. Conclusion

The United States respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence of fifty-seven

(57) months of imprisonment, which represents the high range of the advisory guideline

range, to be followed by a two (2) year period of supervised release.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 15th day of February, 2023.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this date I electronically filed the present motion with

the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to

the parties of record.

COREY R. AMUNDSON
CHIEF, PUBLIC INTEGRITY SECTION

/s/Ryan R. Crosswell
Nicholas W. Cannon (G01814)
Ryan R. Crosswell (G03502)
Trial Attorneys
Department of Justice
Public Integrity Section
1301 New York Ave., NW
10th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 514-8187
nicholas.cannon2@usdoj.gov
ryan.r.crosswell@usdoj.gov