Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anderson v. United States Department of Air Force

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division

September 30, 2016

DEON ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE Defendant.

          OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          HENRY EDWARD AUTREY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 26]. Plaintiff opposes the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

         Introduction

         Plaintiff filed this pro se action against Defendant seeking judicial review of Defendant's debarment decision regarding Plaintiff's ability to enter into contracts with the U.S. Government and his debarment from directly or indirectly receiving the benefits of federal assistance programs.

         Facts and Background

         Defendant has, in accordance with the Court's Local Rules, submitted a Statement of Uncontroverted Material Facts to which Plaintiff responded, however, Plaintiff merely “disagrees” with several of Defendant's facts. Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 7-401(E) of this Court's Local Rules, Plaintiff may not rely on his disagreement with Defendant's facts. Local Rule 7-401(E) provides:

Rule 7 - 4.01 Motions and Memoranda.
(E) A memorandum in support of a motion for summary judgment shall have attached a statement of uncontroverted material facts, set forth in a separately numbered paragraph for each fact, indicating whether each fact is established by the record, and, if so, the appropriate citations. Every memorandum in opposition shall include a statement of material facts as to which the party contends a genuine issue exists. Those matters in dispute shall be set forth with specific references to portions of the record, where available, upon which the opposing party relies. The opposing party also shall note for all disputed facts the paragraph number from movant's listing of facts. All matters set forth in the statement of the movant shall be deemed admitted for purposes of summary judgment unless specifically controverted by the opposing party.

         Plaintiff's failure to specifically controvert Defendant's uncontroverted material facts deems the following admitted:

         Plaintiff Deon E. Anderson (“Anderson”) was a Procurement Officer for Boeing Company Defense Space and Security Division (“Boeing”), a defense contractor providing military style aircraft to the United States Department of Defense and the United States armed services. On October 2, 2013, Anderson was indicted in the Eastern District of Missouri for mail fraud and wire fraud. Specifically, Anderson and three other defendants, Robert Diaz, Jr. (“Diaz”), Jeffrey Lavelle (“LaVelle”) and William P. Boozer (“Boozer”) were indicted for “acting together and aiding and abetting one another, devised, intended to devise, and knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud and obtain money from Boeing and the United States, by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and to deprive Boeing of its right to the honest, faithful, and impartial services of its Procurement Officer, defendant Deon E. Anderson” for the period between May 10, 2011 and April 30, 2013.

         J.L. Manufacturing served as a subcontractor to Anderson's employer on the U.S. Government contracts. LaVelle owned J.L. Manufacturing. Inland Empire consulted for J.L. Manufacturing on numerous subcontracts with the U.S. Government. Diaz owned Inland Empire. Globe Dynamics served as a subcontractor for Anderson's employer and Boozer owned Globe Dynamics.

         Plaintiff, without the knowledge of Boeing, was charged with providing subcontractors “non-public competitor bid information and historical price information in connection with one or more Boeing military aircraft part purchase order requests for quotes.” In exchange for this information, Anderson received cash payments.

         On January 13, 2013, Anderson admitted to agents that he accepted cash bribes totaling approximately $231, 000.00 (and was owed approximately $60, 000 for information previously provided) from subcontractors in exchange for providing confidential price point data/market pricing to secure subcontracts. In addition, Anderson and two other defendants were charged with “acting together and aiding and abetting one another, for the purpose of executing the … scheme and artifice to defraud and to obtain money and property and in attempting to do so, and to deprive Boeing of its right to honest, faithful, and impartial services of its Procurement Officer, did knowingly cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, certain writings, signs and signals . . . with non-public competitor bid information in connection with a Boeing military aircraft parts purchase order.”

         On July 18, 2014, Anderson waived indictment and pled guilty to a superseding information consisting of five (5) counts including one count of mail fraud, three counts of wire fraud, and one count of structuring transactions to avoid reporting requirements while committing mail and wire fraud. Anderson was sentenced to 20 months along with a supervised release term of 24 months.

         Effective October 10, 2013, the USAF suspended Anderson, Diaz, LaVelle and Boozer from Government contracting and from directly or indirectly receiving the benefits of Federal assistance programs. In reaching that decision, the USAF set out four bases for the suspensions. First, the USAF found that “[t]here [was] adequate evidence in the administrative record establishing that [Anderson and three co-defendants] committed offenses indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that seriously and directly affects their present responsibility to be Government contractors and subcontractors. The evidence provides a separate and independent basis for their suspensions pursuant to FAR 9.407-2(a)(9).”

         Second, the USAF found that “[t]here was adequate evidence in the administrative record establishing that [Anderson's and the three co-defendants'] conduct [was] of so serious or compelling in nature that it [affected] their present responsibility to be Government contractors or subcontractors, and provides separate and independent bases for their suspensions pursuant to FAR 9.407-2(c).”

         Third, the USAF found that there was “adequate evidence in the administrative record establishing that [Anderson and the three other co-defendants] committed fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining, attempted to obtain, or performing public contracts or subcontracts, and provides a separate independent basis the suspensions pursuant to FAR 9.407-2(a)(1).”

         Fourth, the USAF found that the indictment filed against Anderson and the three co-defendants was “adequate evidence that they committed crimes so as to affect their present responsibility to be Government contractors or subcontractors, thereby providing a separate ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.