[Peter_Spaeth]

(Doug is asking for 18 months, the prosecution is asking for 57.)

"Mr. Allen is a good person, who is deeply sorry for his actions. He has been happily
married for over 32 years and is a father of three children (one biological and two adopted).
Mr. Allen will ask this Court to consider his service to the Chicago community and his family
circumstances, including having two adopted daughters entering young adulthood and elderly
parents who have Parkinson’s disease and partial blindness. Taking Mr. Allen away from his
family, friends and community who all depend on him and whom he has served with generosity
and passion for an extended period of time would have far-reaching adverse consequences.
Mr. Allen accepted responsibility for his crimes at the onset of this case, and the
Government’s solebasis for not agreeing to acceptance points is its position, with which the
Defense disagrees, that Mr. Allen qualifies for an obstruction of justice enhancement. Mr.
Allen was the first among his co-defendants to cooperate with the Government in this case. Not
only did he confess to his own crime, but he provided valuable information against Mastro and
his other co-defendants. This is in contrast to Mastro, who refused to fully cooperate with the
Government or provide information about his co-defendants for months after he was indicted.
Mastro also received all of the profit from the scheme. Mr. Allen simply was paid as Mastro’s
salaried employee. Mastro admitted that he was the leader of the conspiracy and undisputedly
was the one who created and orchestrated the shill bidding scheme at Mastro Auctions,
approximately two years before Mr. Allen began working at Mastro’s company. Mastro also
admitted to directing a Mastro Auctions employee to destroy bidding records relevant to this
case in order to try to hide his criminal conduct.
Mr. Allen believes that the Government would have recommended a sentence
substantially lower than 20 months for Mr. Allen had he continued to cooperate with the
Government. Unlike Mastro, he was providing valuable cooperation in both his own case and
new investigations unrelated to his own case. However, he made a fatal error in judgment that
he deeply regrets and for which he apologized in person to the Government. Due to the guilt he
felt for wiring up on a friend who was being investigated by the Government, he told the friend
about certain topics the Government was investigating and that he (Mr. Allen) was wearing a
recording device. After Government counsel learned about Mr. Allen’s disclosures, he
justifiably lost his anticipated 50% off cooperation deal, and his conduct will undoubtedly
increase his sentence. But Mr. Allen’s conduct does not merit the substantial increase the
Government is seeking, potentially four more years than he would have gotten as a result of the
underlying offense. This would be an overly harsh and disproportionate sentence based on the
nature of Mr. Allen’s crimes and the § 3553 factors, including Mastro’s sentence and conduct."