On March 31, 1995, the defendant appeared before U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks. At that time, counsel for the defendant, Joe James Sawyer, stated that the defendant would not contest the issue of acceptance of responsibility, but was contesting the issue of obstruction of justice. It was discussed that the defendant had lied in court, that the defendant had not been honest with the probation officer, and had not debriefed truthfully and fully. The court reset the case for May 5, 1995.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) vs. ) PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LAMPRECHT ) Criminal No. A-95-CR-010-01 SS
Prepared For: The Honorable Sam Sparks U.S. District Judge Prepared By: Caroline B. Clark U.S. Probation Officer Austin, Texas (512) 482-5761 Assistant U.S. Attorney Defense Counsel Robert Pitman Joe James Sawyer (retained) 816 Congress Ave., Suite 1000 707 Rio Grande Street Austin, Texas 78701 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 482-5858 (512) 474-6011 Sentence Date: March 31, 1995 Offense: Count 1: Money Laundering, Class C Felony [18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and (g)] Penalty: 20 years/$500,000 or twice the value of the property Date of Arrest: January 11, 1995 Release Status: U.S. Marshal custody Detainers: Travis County, Texas Codefendants: None Related Cases: A-95-CR-17-01 SS - Michael John Dailey Date Report Prepared: 3/16/95 Date Report Revised:
Identifying Data: True Name: Christopher Matthew Lamprecht Date of Birth: May 22, 1972 Place of Birth: Concord, California Age: 22 Race: White; Non-hispanic Sex: Male FBI No.: 702476NA8 USM No.: 61153-080 Other ID No.: SID TX 047541505 Education: Some College Dependents: Self Citizenship: U.S.A. Legal Address: 1907-B Albury Cove Austin, TX 78758 Aliases: "Minor Threat" "MT" "Minor" "Lamer" Scott Berry Robert Tolhurst
PART A. THE OFFENSE Charge(s) and Conviction(s) 1. Christopher Matthew Lamprecht is the sole defendant named in a one-Count Information filed in the Western District of Texas, Austin Division, on February 1, 1995. This one-Count Information charges the defendant with Money Laundering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and (g). 2. On January 11, 1995, Christopher Matthew Lamprecht was placed in Federal custody and was ordered temporarily detained. On January 17, 1995, the defendant appeared before Alan D. Albright, and after consulting with his attorney, waived his right to a detention hearing. 3. On February 3, 1995, Christopher Matthew Lamprecht pled guilty to the one-Count Information pursuant to a plea agreement which calls for the defendant to give a full, complete and truthful statement to law enforcement authorities concerning his knowledge of criminal activities, both as it relates to the charges in the Information, as well as any other criminal activity. Furthermore, the defendant has agreed to give a full financial statement to assessment upon the execution of the plea agreement. Being aware that his sentence will be imposed in conformity with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements, the defendant has waived his right to appeal his sentence on any ground unless the Court should depart upward from its Guideline calculation. 4. Should the court accept the defendant's plea of guilty, the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas has agreed not to pursue other Title 21 or Title 18 offenses against this defendant with regard to the facts that gave rise to the Information. The government has agreed to make known to the Court, prior to sentencing, the nature and extent of the defendant's cooperation concerning this investigation and of any other matters in which he may provide assistance. Related Cases 5. Michael John Dailey has pled guilty to Money Laundering Conspiracy in Cause # A-95-CR-17 and is to be sentenced on March 31, 1995. The Offense Conduct 6. This investigation is a result of information obtained from law enforcement reports, statements made by law enforcement officers, statements made by the defendants, and evidence seized. The investigation has shown that Jason Copson was the leader of a conspiracy involving the sale and distribution of stolen computer and telephone components. This conspiracy involved at least five known members and the criminal investigation is ongoing, with law enforcement officers continuing to seize stolen equipment. The identity of some members of the conspiracy may never be known as they often used "handles". The investigation has shown that Jason Copson is known as "Codec", Michael Dailey is known as "Ion", and Christopher Lamprecht is known as "Minor Threat". The conspiracy utilized false identities which included the use of identification numbers (drivers license numbers, social security numbers), false business names, and false addresses. 7. The investigation has shown that the members of this conspiracy were computer literate, in fact, the known members were active "hackers" and had the capability to enter into a computer program, and review, extract, and change information. They have penetrated several private and governmental computer systems, including Texas Racing Commission, Internal Revenue Service Center, EPA, National Institute of Health, Texas Municipal League, Round Rock Police Department, and VTEL Corporation. With the exception of telephone services, it is unknown if these illegal entries have resulted in monetary gain. 8. In May of 1991, Jason Copson was convicted in the Eastern District of Virginia, for Interstate Transportation of Stolen Property and received a 15 month prison sentence. While under supervision, Copson failed to report to his probation officer in March 1992 and became a fugitive. It is believed that Copson came to Austin, Texas in April 1992. Apparently, Copson met Christopher Lamprecht through a computer bulletin board, and began living with Lamprecht. 9. Christopher Matthew Lamprecht was previously known to various members of law enforcement in Austin, Texas. In 1991, Lamprecht was the primary suspect in a harassment investigation. The victim had been receiving phone calls where the caller was able to change the victim's initial message on the victim's answering machine. The victim reported that his message had been changed to include obscene comments. It was determined that the calls came from Lamprecht's residence. Lamprecht was questioned by a police officer, admitted he had made the phone calls and had changed the message on the answering machine, and agreed he would not do this again. Lamprecht was tied to a similar incident which occurred in 1988. In 1991, Lamprecht was also questioned by the Secret Service and polygraph tests were administered for threatening the President of the United States at an Alliance Tele-conference. According to an autobiographical article by Lamprecht, the first time he failed the polygraph, but he was able to pass the second test. In 1991, Lamprecht had also been arrested for Burglary of a Building. This criminal involvement included Michael Dailey. 10. After Copson's arrival in Austin, members of the conspiracy began burglarizing various businesses within the state of Texas and taking computer and telephone equipment. Burglaries occurred outside of Texas as well. The stolen merchandise would then be sold to various, otherwise legitimate, telecommunication companies throughout the United States. In order to do this, initially, Copson established Berry Associates, a fictitious business. Using the name Scott Berry and identification under that name, Copson and members of the conspiracy established mail drops and opened bank accounts. On April 21, 1992, Lamprecht and Copson obtained a postal mail box at Mail Boxes Etc., in Austin in the fictitious names of Scott Berry and Berry Associates. On April 27, 1992, another mail box was opened under the name of Berry. On June 11, 1992, Copson obtained a postal mail box at the Mail Post in Chicago, Illinois in the name of Scott Berry. A savings account was opened at the Nations Bank in Austin on June 18, 1992 under the name of Scott Berry. Copson provided a Virginia drivers license under that name. 11. During the first week of July 1992, numerous burglaries occurred at various businesses in the Austin area. On July 9, 1992, Copson and Lamprecht, who were attempting to sell computer chips which had been stolen from Advanced Micro Devices to a reputable dealer, were arrested. As a result of this arrest, Lamprecht was found guilty and placed on probation for three burglaries, although it was determined that Copson and Lamprecht had been involved in more burglaries. Copson, as a result of his federal fugitive status, was returned to federal custody. 12. On July 10, 1992, officers executed a search warrant at Copson's and Lamprecht's residence. Stolen components and equipment were seized. Handwritten notes and instructions detailing how to burglarize a location, avoiding detection and stealing specific electronic telephone switching equipment were seized. Handwritten notes showing a detailed listing of frequencies used by police departments in Austin Police, Westlake Hills, Rollingwood, University of Texas, and Round Rock were seized as well as for the sheriff departments in Travis and Williamson Counties. A seized police scanner confirmed that the conspirators were able to monitor police activity while they were committing burglaries. A handwritten note in reference to "Project Robert Tolhurst" revealed an itemized list of steps to take in order to obtain a fictitious identity for Tolhurst. Tolhurst's name later came up as having access to a mail drop. Additional false identification was also seized. 13. Even after Copson's incarceration, the conspiracy continued to operate as a result of Copson having left behind a detailed directive of how the organization should continue to operate in the event of his arrest and from Copson verbally giving directive while in federal custody. As a result of outgoing calls by federal inmates being monitored, law enforcement officers were able to learn of some of the directives regarding illegal activity which Copson gave to Lamprecht and other members of the conspiracy. 14. Burglaries continued and Michael Dailey established the fictitious business of Network Services and began using the Mike Smith. A mail box and bank account were opened under these names. Other individuals and entities authorized to receive mail were listed as Robert Tolhurst, Scott Berry, Michael Smith, and Berry Associates. It became Dailey's responsibility to receive the stolen component boards and sell them. 15. From reviewing six bank accounts, a conservative idea of the amount of money which was laundered can be made. Because this conspiracy is believed to be nationwide, it is also believed that there are more than six accounts where money has been laundered. Based on a review of checks deposited into these accounts from telecommunication companies, it is known that this money laundering conspiracy involved at least $165,735.00. Checks from these companies were deposited into Lamprecht's account at Bank One, Beverly Daniel's (Copson's aunt) account, Berry Associates account at Nations Bank, Network Services account at Bank One, Lamprecht's account at Nations Bank, and Nate Stark's (Copson's attorney) account at Nations Bank. Money was later withdrawn and was used to purchase a 1990 Nissan 300 ZX for Lamprecht, pay attorney fees for Copson, used to purchase money orders which were later deposited into Copson's commissary account, and to maintain the conspiracy. 16. On February 7, 1994, after learning that the computer security of the Texas Racing Commission had been violated, a search warrant was executed at Lamprecht's residence at 1907-B Albury Cove. Investigators for the Commission had been able to determine that the modem line which was accessing the computer's information came from 836-1082 which was located at 1907-B Albury Cove. It was determined that the subscriber for this phone line was Eric Myhres and that three other lines had been subscribed in the same name at the same address. David L. Denz was listed as a roommate and David Lamb was a reference. These have since been determined to be additional fictitious names. After the warrant was executed, it was clear that Lamprecht was renting this residence and that David Michael Querin and Michael John Bednarczyk were his roommates. At the time the warrant was executed, additional stolen equipment was recovered as well as a computer containing information from the files of the Texas Racing Commission and other governmental agencies/private businesses. 17. The criminal investigation into this conspiracy's criminal activities resulted in the execution of at least three warrants (July 10, 1992, November 10 1992, and February 7, 1994). At least $500,000, but possibly more than $1,000,000 of stolen merchandise has been seized. Victim Impact 18. The money from the money laundering conspiracy came from the interstate sale and distribution of stolen electronic and/or telephone components. The investigation has shown that these victims include Southwestern Bell, AMD, and other businesses known and unknown. Prior to an Information being filed, officers have seized over $500,000 worth of stolen computer and telephone equipment. The full dollar amount of equipment that was stolen and has already ben sold is unknown. Under U.S. v. Hughey, restitution can not be ordered. Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice 19. At the time that the search warrant was executed at the defendant's residence at 1907 Albury Cove on February 7, 1995, Austin Police Department Office Paul Brick left his business card. As previously stated, Arthur Jason Copson was in Federal custody and was actively participating in the conspiracy. During this incarceration, Copson had a phone conversation with Christopher Matthew Lamprecht in which Paul Brick's name was brought up. Anger was expressed regarding the seizure of equipment and ways to "ruin" Paul Brick were discussed. The importance of obtaining Paul Brick's Social Security Number was discussed. Lamprecht and Copson can state that they knew the phone conversation was being taped since Copson was in a Federal facility and their threat was not serious. However, if they knew that, it can be interpreted that they were attempting to impede/obstruct the investigation by making this "threat" against Paul Brick. If this conversation is to be considered legitimate, then the defendant has participated in an attempt to retaliate against an officer (witness) who conducted the investigation. Members of conspiracy have shown that they are capable of entering computers and extracting data. It is also known that if a Social Security Number is placed in the wrong hands, damage could be done. At least one other person has suffered damage to his credit as a result of members of this conspiracy obtaining his social security number. As a result, the defendant participated in either threatening or retaliating against Paul Brick. Therefore, under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, a 2 level increase is warranted. Adjustment for Acceptance of Responsibility 20. In a 1994 issue of Phrack magazine, the defendant wrote an article regarding his involvement in "hacking". In this article, the defendant also gave advise which was "If you ever get arrested or even simply questioned about ANYTHING AT ALL, DO NOT COOPERATE." The defendant went on to advise that "cooperating will never help you" and "being narced on by a 'buddy' is the worst thing that could ever happen to you, and narcing on a 'buddy' is the worst thing you could do to them." 21. At the time of the Presentence Interview, it was explained to the defendant that he must demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility by being truthful in regards to the relevant conduct. Lamprecht failed to do so. He limited the members of the conspiracy to three people, he stated his involvement in the conspiracy ended in November of 1993, and as a result he has failed to demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility. The defendant only recently (within the last two weeks) began to truthfully debrief with law enforcement officers, however, according to the investigators, it is believed that the defendant only provides information which he knows the investigators are already aware of. As a result, there do not appear to be any extraordinary circumstances which would allow for adjustments under both U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 and 3E1.1. 22. At the time of the defendant's plea, the defendant's Factual Basis was read to him and the Court asked Lamprecht if he agreed with the Factual Basis. Lamprecht gave a verbal stipulation that the conspiracy only involved three people. The investigation has shown that the conspiracy involved at least five people and as a result, the defendant provided false information to the Court. U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 states that conduct resulting in an enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (Obstructing or Impeding the Administration of Justice), ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct. Offense Level Computations 23. The Sentencing Guidelines Manual which incorporates amendments effective 11/1/94 is being utilized for guideline computation purposes, and consideration of the ex post facto clause has been applied. Count 1 -- MONEY LAUNDERING CONSPIRACY 24. Base Offense Level: The United States Sentencing 20 Commission Guideline for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1) and (g) is found in U.S.S.G. § 2S1.1. and calls for a base offense level of 20. 25. Specific Offense Characteristics: The value of the 1 funds laundered exceeded $153,000, which is more than $100,000, but less than $200,000. 26. Victim-Related Adjustments: None 0 27. Adjustments for Role in the Offense: None 0 28. Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice: 0 29. Adjusted Offense Level (Subtotal): 23 30. Adjustment for Acceptance of Responsibility: 0 31. Total Offense Level: 23 32. Chapter Four Enhancements: None 0 33. Total Offense Level: 23
PART C. OFFENDER CHARACTERISTICS Personal and Family Data 42. Christopher Matthew Lamprecht, born on May 22, 1972, is the older of two siblings born to Craig Lamprecht and Michele Wood. The defendant was born in Concord, California, and resided there until he was approximately five years old, when his family moved to London, England, for two years. The defendant and his family returned to California for one year, and in 1980, the family moved to Austin, Texas. Craig and Michele Lamprecht divorced in 1981. The defendant maintained residence with his mother until he left home at age 19. During that time, the defendant did live with his father for approximately eight months when he was 12 years old. Michele remarried when Lamprecht was approximately 11 years old; this marriage lasted for approximately two years. 43. The defendant reports he is closest to his mother, Michele Wood, age 46, who resides in Plano, Texas. Ms. Wood expresses support for her son. She stated that at the time the defendant was growing up, she felt that her son was safe as he was spending time in his room with his computer rather than being away from home, using drugs and getting into trouble. The defendant has a younger sister, Angeli Lamprecht, age 19, who resides in Austin. The defendant's father resides in Boca Raton, Florida. Mr. Lamprecht is unaware of the instant offense. Michele Wood describes Craig Lamprecht as being abusive. She states that toward the end of her marriage, he began to physically abuse the defendant. The defendant has stated that his mother has told him this, but he does not remember it. Physical Condition 44. Christopher Matthew Lamprecht is approximately 6'1" tall, weighing 170 pounds. He has brown hair and blue eyes and reports no medical problems. Education and Vocational Skills 47. At the time the defendant was arrested, he was registered to take classes for the Spring Semester 1995 at the University of Texas. The defendant in the last four years has accrued approximately 38 hours of credits. Employment Record 48. Since April of 1993, the defendant has been on Optical Document Technology's payroll with the last pay period being January 14, 1995. According to the president of the company, Don Speer, the defendant is a good employee and they are holding a position for him. At the time the defendant was arrested, he was making $12 an hour, working approximately 20 hours per week. The defendant acted as a programmer, installer, and troubleshooter. 49. Prior to that, from February of 1993 until April of 1993, the defendant was employed at Tools and Techniques as a technical support help. This was the defendant's first employment after his release from incarceration as a result of his July 1992 arrests. 50. The defendant reports he has previously worked for Sell- Thru-Services as a programmer, computer Works; and HEB. Financial Condition: Ability to Pay 51. The defendant's attorney has been retained. According to the defendant, he turned over his 1990 Nissan 300ZX, which he purchased in October of 1993 with profits from his illegal activity, to his attorney for a retainer fee. In regards to other assets, the defendant claims to have approximately $500 in a checking account, a 1983 Datson valued at $500, and stereo equipment valued at less than $800. The defendant did not include any computer equipment as assets. Based on the above factors, the defendant has the ability to pay a fine within the Guideline Range.
PART D. SENTENCING OPTIONS Custody 52. Statutory Provisions: The maximum term of imprisonment is 20 years, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1956. 53. Guideline Provisions: Based on a total offense level of 23 and a criminal history category of III, the guideline range for imprisonment is 57 to 71 months. U.S.S.G. Chapter 5, Part A. 54. Since the applicable guideline range is in Zone D of the Sentencing Table, the minimum term shall be satisfied by a sentence of imprisonment. U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(f). Impact of the Plea Agreement 55. The defendant pled guilty to a single-Count Information and all relevant factors have been considered in the guideline computations. Supervised Release 56. Statutory Provisions: If a term of imprisonment is imposed, the Court may impose a term of supervised release of not more than 3 years. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(2). 57. Guideline Provisions: The guideline range for a term of supervised release is at least 2 years but not more than 3 years. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(b)(2). If a sentence of imprisonment of 1 year or less is imposed, a term of supervised release is not required but is optional. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(b). Supervised release is required if the Court imposes a term of imprisonment of more than 1 year. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.1(a). Probation 58. Statutory Provisions: The defendant is eligible for not less than 1 year nor more than 5 years probation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3561(b)(1). Because the offense is a felony, one of the following must be imposed as a condition of probation unless extraordinary circumstances exist; a fine, restitution, or community service, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3563(a)(2). 59. Guideline Provisions: Because the minimum of the guideline range is greater than 6 months, the defendant is not eligible for probation, pursuant to the U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1 Application Note 2. Fines 60. Statutory Provisions: The maximum fine is $500,000 or twice the property value, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1956. A special assessment of $50 is mandatory, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013. 61. Guideline Provisions: The fine range for the instant offense is from $10,000 [U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(1)] to $500,000 [U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(c)(4)]. 62. Subject to the defendant's ability to pay, the Court shall impose an additional fine amount that is at least sufficient to pay the costs to the government of any imprisonment, probation or supervised release ordered. U.S.S.G. § 5E1.2(i). The most recent Memorandum from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts dated 4/30/93 suggests a monthly cost of $1,734.00 be used for imprisonment and a yearly cost of $2,170.80 be used for supervision. Restitution 63. Restitution is not an issue in this case.
PART E. FACTORS THAT MAY WARRANT DEPARTURE 64. Presentation of information in this section does not necessarily constitute a recommendation by the Probation Officer for a departure. 65. There is an aggravating factor which the Court may consider that the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guideline for a violation of 18 USC 1956 did not include. The present guideline does not consider the possible amount of money which could have been laundered had the over $500,00 of stolen merchandise not been seized. Respectfully submitted, (signed) ______________________________ CAROLINE B. CLARK U.S. Probation Officer Approved: (signed) ___________________________ SUSAN J. RODOLF Supervising U.S. Probation Officer CBC:dw
ADDENDUM TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS UNITED STATED V. CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LAMPRECHT CRIMINAL NO. A-95-CR-010(1)SS The probation office certifies that the presentence report, including any revisions thereof, has been disclosed to the defendant, his attorney, and counsel for the Government, and that the content of the addendum has been communicated to counsel. The addendum fairly states any objections they have made.OBJECTIONS By the Government The Government has submitted no objections to the presentence report.By the Defendant On March 27, 1995, counsel for the defendant, Joe James Sawyer, submitted written objections to the presentence report. These objections address the Adjustment for Obstruction of Justice, as well as the Adjustment for Acceptance for Responsibility On March 28, 1995, counsel met with the U.S Probation Office to further discuss these objections. However, these objections remain unresolved. OBJECTIONS #1: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE Counsel contends that this adjustment is based on the contemplation of retaliation. RESPONSE: It will be a long time before the authorities will be able to determine what type of action Copson and Lamprecht took against Austin Police Department Officer Paul Brick. However, this is perceived to be a threat and should be considered serious. Copson and Lamprecht were initially arrested in 1992, as a result of a cooperating individual. That individual has since had problems with his credit. It appears that credit has been obtained fraudulently under this individual's name. Lamprecht mentions this individual and provides this individual's social security number in his Phrack Magazine article. It has been reported that some officers who have worked on this case have taken additional security measures in order to protect their credit, etc. As a result, this threat is considered to be valid and as a result, the adjustment is warranted. (Unresolved) OBJECTION #2: ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY Counsel contends that the defendant is debriefing truthfully without the presence of an attorney, and has not yet concluded his debriefing and as a result, to deny him acceptance prior to the completion of his debriefing, deprives him of a fair opportunity to demonstrate his acceptance of responsibility. RESPONSE: A review of the facts in this investigation shows that Christopher Lamprecht has not demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility as defined under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. The Phrack Magazine article mentioned in the report demonstrates an on-going philosophy of the defendant's that there should be no cooperation. The defendant continued his belief in not cooperating when he released to the Court on February 3, 1995, that the conspiracy involved only Copson, Dailey, and himself, and did not involve any "others." The investigation has shown that this is not true, and that Lamprecht knew it was not true. At the time that the defendant interviewed with the Probation Officer, he continued to state that this conspiracy only involved three individuals. By doing this, Lamprecht has diminished the conspiracy and has not demonstrated an acceptance of responsibility. It should also be pointed out, that by making a false statement to the Court while under oath, the defendant has again attempted to obstruct the administration of justice Respectfully submitted, (signed) ______________________________ CAROLINE B. CLARK U.S. Probation Officer Approved: (signed) ___________________________ SUSAN J. RODOLF Supervising U.S. Probation Officer Date: 3/29/95 CBC:dw
AMENDED ADDENDUM TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS UNITED STATED V. CHRISTOPHER MATTHEW LAMPRECHT CRIMINAL NO. A-95-CR-010(1)SS
On April 20, 1995, Christopher Matthew Lamprecht met with law enforcement authorities to discuss his criminal involvement. According to APD Office Randy Bradley and IRS Special Agent George Mading, the defendant was truthful during this debriefing. However, Lamprecht only verified what law enforcement officers already knew. No new information was provided.
The debriefing did not change how the guidelines had previously been applied. It is clear that Christopher Matthew Lamprecht assisted in retaliating against a witness who assisted police in 1992 when the defendant was arrested after attempting to sell stolen computer parts from Advanced Micro Devices. There is also at least one tape recorded conversation between Lamprecht and Copson in which they threatened APD Office Paul Brick when they stated they will obtain his social security number and disburse the information.
In regards to acceptance of responsibility, it is the opinion of law enforcement officers that after his April 20, 1995, debriefing, Lamprecht has been ninety-five percent truthful. The timeliness of his honesty does not demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility. The investigation has shown that the defendant previously did not demonstrate an acceptance of responsibility.
Respectfully submitted, (signed) ______________________________ CAROLINE B. CLARK U.S. Probation Officer Approved: (signed) ___________________________ SUSAN J. RODOLF Supervising U.S. Probation Officer CBC:jd