Duaybes Munther

1 of 8
AUG 26, 2009

09-20732-CR-GRAHAM/TORRES
Case 1:09-cr-20732-DLG Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/27/2009 Page 1 of 8
2 of 8
they result in either currency received (cash in) or currency disbursed (cash out) by the finan ial
institution totaling more than $10,000 during any one business day." Covered financial transacti ns
include deposits, withdrawals, check cashing, or other transactions involving the physical tran fer
of currency from one person to another.
3. Before concluding any financial transaction that would trigger a CTR filin
financial institution, such as a money service business ("MSB"), must verify and accurately rec
the name and address of the individual presenting a financial transaction, as well as accurately rec
the identity, Social Security or taxpayer identification number of any person or entity on wh
behalf such financial transaction is to be effected.
4. In addition, pursuant to 31 C.F.R. 103.125(a), MSBs must "develop, impleme t,
and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program ... reasonably designed to prevent
money services business from being used to facilitate money laundering." The program must e
commensurate with the risks posed by the location, size, nature and volume of the financial servi es
provided by the MSB. The program must also incorporate policies, procedures and contr Is
reasonably designed to assure compliance with the BSA and implementing regulations.
5. In or around September 2008, the Internal Revenue Service and the United Stat s
Department of Labor initiated an undercover operation to investigate possible illegal activities wit n
the local money service industry. A cooperating witness ("CW") assisted in the undercover operati n
by posing as the owner of a company in Broward County. The CW presented himself as someo e
willing to cash his business' checks made payable to a shell company.
2
3 of 8
Defendant and Relevant Entities
6. MDPL, Inc., doing business as Mark's Check Cashing Store, was incorporated in the
State of Florida on or about November 8, 2005, with a principal place of business located at 3 57
Military Trail in Lake Worth, Florida. As a check cashing store, Mark's Check Cashing Store
been licensed and registered in the State of Florida as a money service business since Novembe 8,
2006. As a money service business, Mark's Check Cashing Store is a "financial institution" (as t at
term is defined in Title 31, United States Code, Section 5312(a)(2)(k) and under Title 31, Code of
Federal Regulations, Sections 103.11(n)(3) and (uu)(2)) subject to the CTR filing requirements of
the BSA and attendant regulations. From on or about March 2, 2007, through on or about Ma 8,
2009, Mark's Check Cashing Store filed 1,387 CTRs regarding over $42 million in financ al
transactions executed for its customers.
7. JH American Construction Corp. was incorporated in the State of Florida on or ab ut
January 21, 2008, with a principal place of business located at 740 East 5th Street in Hiale h,
Florida. An individual whose initials are J.N. is the company's registered president. From on r
about April11, 2008, through on or about December 20, 2008, Mark's Check Cashing Store fil d
127 CTRs listing JH American Construction Corp. and J.N. as the participants involved in 1,2 3
financial transactions totaling over $7.5 million.
8. Defendant MUNTHER DUA YBES was the president ofMDPL, Inc., and the own r
and operator of Mark's Check Cashing Store.
3
4 of 8
COUNTS 1-3
CAUSING THE FILING OF FALSE
CURRENCY TRANSACTION REPORTS
(31 U.S.C. 5313(a), 5324(a)(2) and (d)(2);
31 C.F.R. 103.22 and 103.28; and 18 U.S.C. 2)
1. Paragraphs 1 through 8 of the General Allegations section of this Information
realleged and incorporated as though fully set forth herein.
2. On or about the dates as set forth as to each count below, in the Southern n
Florida, and elsewhere, the defendant,
MUNTHER DUA YBES,
did knowingly and for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of Title 31, United
Code, Section 5313(a), and the regulations prescribed thereunder, cause a domestic ...... ,u!...,!U!
institution, that is, MDPL, Inc., doing business as Mark's Check Cashing Store, to file a
required by Title 31, United States Code, Section 5313(a), specifically, a Currency
Report on the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Form 104,
contained a material omission and misstatement of fact concerning, among other things, the
identity ofthe parties involved in the financial transaction and the source of the funds involved,
part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period.
I 09/19/2008 Check payable to JH American
Construction Corp. totaling $30,247
cashed at Mark's Check Cashing
Store by J.N.
4
20082776774930
5 of 8
2
3
09/26/2008
10/10/2008
Check payable to JH American
Store by J.N.
Check payable to JH American
Store by J .N.
20082776774130
20083018175830
In violation of Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5313(a), 5324(a)(2) and ( d)(2);
31, Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 103.22 and 103.28; and Title 18, United States
Section 2.
CRIMINAL FORFEITURE
fully incorporated herein for the purpose of alleging forfeitures to the United States of
pursuant to the provisions of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5317( c )(1 ).
2. As a result ofthe offenses, alleged in Counts 1-3, defendant MUNTHER D U A
shall forfeit to the United States all property, real and personal, involved in the aforestated . L L ' ~ " " ' " "
and all property traceable to such property, including but not limited to:
(a) A money judgment in the amount of$25,095.01.
(b) $3,987 in U.S. currency seized by the Internal Revenue Service.
If the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act
omission of the defendant,
(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence,
5
6 of 8
(b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with a third person;
(c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court;
(d) has been substantially diminished in value; or
(e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivi ed
without difficulty;
it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 31, United States Code, Section 531 7( c)( 1)
Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of he
defendants up to the value of the above forfeitable property and obtain a money judgment in n
amount equal to the value of the property involved in the violations.
All pursuant to Title 31, United States Code, Section 5317( c )(1) and Title 21, United Sta es
Code, Section 853.
JEFFREY H. SLOMAN
ACTING UNITED STATES A TTORNE
JEFFREY E. TSAI
ASSIST ANT UNITED STATES ATTORN Y
6
7 of 8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CASE NO.
vs.
CERTIFICATE OF TRIAL ATTORNEY
MUNTHER DUAYBES,
Defendant.
Court Division: (Select One}
.x..._ Miami __
FTL
Key West
WPB-
I do hereby certify that:
FTP
Superseding Case Information:
New Defendant(s) Yes __
Number of New Defendants
NO--
Total number of counts
1. I have carefully considered the allegations of the Information, the number of defendants, the umber
of probable witnesses and the legaf complexities of the Information attached hereto.
2. I am aware that the information supplied on this statement will be relied upon by the Judge of this
Court in settillg their calendars and scheduling criminal trials under the mandate of the SpeedY rial Act,
Title 28 U.S.C. Section 3161.
3.
4.
Interpreter: (Yes or No)
List language and/or dialect
This case will take 0 days for the parties to try.
5. Please check appropriate category and type of offense listed below:
I
II
Ill
IV
v
(Check only one) (Check only one)
0 to 5 days
6 to 10 days
11 to 20 days
21 to 60 days
61 days and over
X Petty
Minor
Misdem.
Felony X
6. Has this case been previously filed in this District Court? (Yes or No) No
If yes:
Judge: Case No.
(Attach copy of dispositive order)
Has a complaint been filed in this matter? (Yes or No) No
If yes:
Magistrate Case No.
Related Miscellaneous numbers:
Defendant(s) in federal custody as of
Defendant(s) in state custody as of
Rule 20 from the District of
Is this a potential death penalty case? (Yes or No) No
7. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Northern Region of the U.S. Attorney's Offi e prior
to October 14, 2003? __ Yes _X_ No
8. Does this case originate from a matter pending in the Central Region of the U.S. Attorney's Offi e prior
to September 1, 2007? __ Yes _X __ N
*Penalty Sheet(s) attached
Jeffrey . Tsai
Assistant United States Attorney
Courtld. No.A5500953
RE 4/8/08
8 of 8
PENALTY SHEET
Defendant's Name: Munther Duavbes
Case No:
Counts 1-3:
Causinl! the Filinl! of False Currency Transaction Reoorts
Title 31 United States Code Sections 5313_(_al,_ 5324(a)(2) and 5324(dj(_2)
*Max. Penalty: 10 years' imprisonment
Count:
*Max. Penalty:
Count:
*Max. Penalty:
Count:
*Max. Penalty:
*Refers only to possible term of incarceration, does not include possible fines, restitution,
special assessments, parole terms, or forfeitures that may be applicable.
CASE NO.: 09-20732-CR-GRAHAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, ARRAIGNMENT INFORMATION SHEET
vs.
Jail No
MUNTHER DUAYBES
Defendant.
________________________ !
The above-named Defendant appeared before Magistrate Judge
WILLIAM C. TURNOFF. The Defendant was arraigned and a plea of
not guilty was entered. Defendant and court-
appointed/retained counsel of record will be noticed for trial
by the District Judge assigned to this case. The following
information is current as of this date:
Defendant:

Tel. No: __________________________________ __
Defense Counsel: Name: DAVID G. VINIKOOR, ESQ.
Address: 420 SE 12TH STREET
FT. LAUDERDALE, FL 33316
Tel. No: ( 954) 522-2500
Bond Set/Continued:
s I oo l:--
Dated this 31ST day of AUGUST 2009.
c:CRD
U.S. Attorney
Defense Counsel
U.S. Pretrial
STEVEN M. LARIMORE, CLERK OF COURT
BY LAKESHIA A. WILLIAMS
Deputy Clerk
DAR t4 : O(e : 5
2
,
TAPE No. o 9G- sr -1sqs
(Rev. 7/09) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APPEARANCE BOND: $1 () QK
CASE NO.: t>'l -olf-a.lf'A!I#es
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
v.
M tJN1 #I if p ti.A y' tl?'S
Defendant,
_________________________ !
JAIL # _
I, the undersigned defendant and I or we, the undersigned sureties, jointly and severally acknowledge that we and our
personal representatives, jointly erally, are bound to pay the United States of America, the sum of
$ 00
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF BOND
The conditions of this bond are that the defendant:
1. Shall appear before this court and at such other places as the defendant may be required to appear, in
accordance with any and all orders and directions relating to the defendant's appearance in this case, including
appearance for violation of a condition of the defendant's release as may be ordered or notified by this court or any
other United States District Court to which the defendant may be held to answer or the cause transferred. The
defendant is to abide by any judgment entered in such matter by surrendering to serve any sentence imposed and
obeying any order or direction in connection with such judgment. This is a continuing bond, including any proceeding
on appeal or review, which shall remain in full force and effect until such time as the court shall order otherwise.
2. May not at any time, for any reason whatever, leave the Southern District of Florida or other District to
which the case may be removed or transferred after he or she has appeared in such District pursuant to the conditions
of this bond, without first obtaining written permission from the court, except that a defendant ordered removed or
transferred to another district may travel to that district as required for court appearances and trial preparation upon
written notice to the Clerk ofthis court or the court to which the case has been removed or transferred. The Southern
District of Florida consists of the following counties: Monroe, Miami-Dade, Broward, Palm Beach, Martin, St.
Lucie, Indian River, Okeechobee, and Highlands.
3. May not change his or her present address as recorded on this bond without prior permission in writing from
the court.
4. Is required to appear in court at all times as required by notice given by the court or its clerk to the address
on this bond or in open court or to the address as changed by permission from the c:ourt. The defendant is required to
ascertain from tbe Clerk of Court or defense counsel the time and place of all scheduled proceedings on the case. In
no event may a defendant assume that his or her case has been dismissed unless the court has entered an order of
dismissal.
5. The defendant must cooperate with law enforcement officers in the collection of a DNA sample if the
collection is required by 42 U.S.C. Section 14135a.
6. Shall not commit any act in violation of state or federal laws.
DEFENDANT:
CASE NUMBER: D9-
PAGE TWO
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF BOND
In addi9'on to compliance with the previously stated conditions of bond, the defendant must comply with the special
conditions checked below:
21
. . , urrender all and travel documents, if any, to the Pretrial Services Office and not obtain any travel
documents dunng the pendency of the
-b. Report to Pretrial Services as follow: . as directed o time(s) a week in person and __ time(s)
a week by telephone;
c. Submit to substance abuse testing and/or treatment;
d. Refrain from excessive use of alcohol, or any use of a narcotic drug or other controlled substance, as defined
in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802), without a prescription by a licensed
medical practitioner;
e. Participate in mental health assessment and/or treatment;
f. Participate and undergo a sex offense specific evaluation and treatment;
_g. Maintain or actively seek full-time employment;
h. Maintain or begin an educational program;
1. A void all contact with victims of or witnesses to the crimes charged, except through counsel;
__1. Refrain from possessing a firearm, destructive device or other dangerous weapons;
k. None of the signatories may sell, pledge, mortgage, hypothecate, encumber, etc., any property they own, real
or personal, until the bond is discharged, or otherwise modified by the Court;
1. May not visit commercial transportation establishment: airports, seaport/marinas, commercial bus terminals,
train stations, etc.;
_m. No access to the internet via any type of connectivity device (i.e. computers, pda 's, cellular phones, tv's), and
follow instructions as outlined in the agreement waiver provided to you by Pretrial Services;
n. HOME CONFINEMENT PROGRAM The defendant shall participate in one of the following home
confinement program components and abide by all the requirements of the program which ( ) will not or
( ) will include electronic monitoring or other location verification system, paid for by the defendant
based upon his/her ability to pay ( ) or paid for by Pretrial Services ( ).
Curfew: You are restricted to your residence every day from _____ to , or as directed
by the Court.
Home Detention: You are restricted to your residence at all times except for: ( ) medical needs or
treatment, ( ) court appearances, ( ) attorney visits or court ordered obligations, and ( ) other
o. HALFWAY HOUSE PLACEMENT The defendant shall reside at a halfway house or community
corrections center and abide by all the rules and regulations of the program.
You are restricted to the halfway house at all times except for: ( ) employment; ( ) education;
( ) religious services; ( ) medical, substance abuse, or mental health treatment; ( ) attorney visits;
( ) court appearances; ( ) court ordered obligations; ( ) reporting to Pretrial Services; and
( )other _____________________________________________________________ ___
__p. May travel to and from: _____________ ,, and must notify Pretrial Services of travel plans
l
before leaving and upon return.

CASE NUMBER:=--
PAGE THREE
PENAL TIES AND SANCTIONS APPLICABLE TO DEFENDANT
Violation of any of the foregoing conditions of release may result in the immediate issuance of a warrant for
the defendant's arrest, a revocation of release, an order of detention, as provided in 18 U.S.C. 3148, forfeiture of any
bail posted, and a prosecution for contempt as provided in 18 U.S.C. 401, which could result in a possible term of
imprisonment or a fine.
The commission of any offense while on pretrial release may result in an additional sentence upon conviction
for such offense to a term of imprisonment of not more than ten years, if the offense is a felony; or a term of
imprisonment of not more than one year, if the offense is a misdemeanor. This sentence shall be consecutive to any
other sentence and must be imposed in addition to the sentence received for the offense itself.
Title 18 U.S.C. 1503 makes it a criminal offense punishable by up to five years of imprisonment and a
$250,000 fine to intimidate or attempt to intimidate a witness, juror or officer of the court; 18 U. S.C. 1510 makes
it a criminal offense punishable by up to five years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine to obstruct a criminal
investigation; 18 U.S.C. 1512 makes it a criminal offense punishable by up to ten years of imprisonment and a
$250,000 fine to tamper with a witness, victim or informant; and 18 U.S.C. 1513 makes it a criminal offense
punishable by up to ten years of imprisonment and a $250,000 fine to retaliate against a witness, victim or informant,
or threaten to do- so.
It is a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. 3146, if after having been released, the defendant knowingly fails to
appear as required by the conditions of release, or to surrender for the service of sentence pursuant to a court order.
If the defendant was released in connection with a charge of, or while awaiting sentence, surrender for the service of
a sentence, or appeal or certiorari after conviction for:
( 1) an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term of fifteen years or more
the defendant shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both;
(2) an offense punishable by imprisonment for a term of five years or more, but less than fifteen years, the
defendant shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both;
(3) any other felony, the defendant shall be fined not more than $250,000 or imprisoned not more than two
years, or both;
(4) a misdemeanor, the defendant shall be fined not more that $100,000 or imprisoned not more than one
year, or both.
A term of imprisonment imposed for failure to appear or surrender shall be consecutive to the sentence of
imprisonment for any other offense. In addition, a failure to appear may result in the forfeiture of any bail posted,
which means that the defendant will be obligated to pay the full amount of the bond, which may be enforced by all
applicable laws of the United States.
PENAL TIES AND SANCTIONS APPLICABLE TO SURETIES
Violation by the defendant of any of the foregoing conditions of release will result in an immediate obligation by the surety or
sureties to pay the full amount of the bond. Forfeiture of the bond for any breach of one or more conditions may be declared by
a judicial officer of any United States District Court having cognizance of the above entitled matter at the time of such breach, and
if the bond is forfeited and the forfeiture is not set aside or remitted, judgment may be entered upon motion in such United States
District Court against each surety jointly and severally for the amount of the bond, together with interest and costs, and execution
may be issued and payment secured as provided by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and other laws of the United States.
SIGNATURES
I have carefully re.ad and I understand this entire appearance bond consisting of four pages, or it has been read to me, and, if
necessary, translated into my native language, and I know that I am obligated by law to comply with all of the terms of this bond.
I promise to obey all conditions of this bond, to appear in court as required, and to surrender for service of any sentence imposed.
I am aware of the penalties and sanctions outlined in this bond for violations of the terms of the bond.
If I am an agent acting for or on behalf of a corporate surety, I further represent that I am a duly authorized agent for the corporate
surety and have full power to execute this bond in the amount stated.
DEFENDANT
=-"-'-...::....,..gr::=>..,...._r---' 200_L at F'r , FMa. !) ,..._,
DE FEN DM{T: (Signature) _ ... ___
Coc.o '"d;f t: X StatT e, ,
State
CORPORATE SURETY
Signed this __ day of ________ , 200_L at _________ , Florida
SURETY: AGENT:(Signature) --------------
City State
PRINT NAME:----------------
INDIVIDUAL SURETIES
Signed this_ day of , at ___ , Florida Signed this_ day of , at ___ , Florida
SURETY:(Signature) SURETY:(Signature) ----------
PRINT NAME: PRINT NAME:
RELATIONSHIP TO DEFENDANT
City State
Signed this _day of , at ___ , Florida
SURETY:(Signature) ------------
PRINT NAME:--------------
RELATIONSHIP TO DEFENDANT ______ _
City State
City State
APPROVAL BY COUR
W_ ILLIAM (::; TUitNOFF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ATTACHMENT(S) NOT SCANNED
PLEASE REFER TO COURT FILE
MAINTAINED IN THE OFFICE WHERE THE
JUDGE IS CHAMBERED
CASE NO. 0q-2oJSL-
D DUE TO POOR QUALITY, THE ATTACHED
DOCUMENT IS NOT SCANNED
D VOLUMINOUS (exceeds 999 pages= 4 inches)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
[ll
D
D
consisting of (boxes, notebooks, etc.) ________ _
BOUND EXTRADITION PAPERS
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (Social Security)
ORIGINAL BANKRUPTCY TRANSCRIPT
STATE COURT RECORD (Habeas Cases)
SOUTHERN DISTRICT TRANSCRIPTS
LEGAL SIZE
DOUBLE SIDED
PHOTOGRAPHS
POOR QUALITY (e.g. light print, dark print, etc.)
SURETY BOND (original or letter or undertaking) 'Pfrsvn a _JJJ
CD's, DVD's, VHS Tapes, Cassette Tapes
OTHER
CASE NO. 09-20732-CR-GRAHAM
vs.
MUNTHER DUAYBES,
Defendant.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ '
PLEA AGREEMENT
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (hereinafter, the
"Office" or "government") and Munther Duaybes (the "defendant") enter into the following
agreement:
1. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to the Information that charges him with three
counts of causing, and attempting to cause, a domestic fmancial institution, that is, MDPL, Inc.,
doing business as Mark's Check Cashing Store, to file a report required by Title 31, United States
Code, Section 5313(a), specifically, a Currency Transaction Report on the Treasury Department's
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network Form 104, that contained a material omission and
misstatement of fact concerning, among other things, the true identity of the parties involved in the
financial transactions and the source of the funds involved, as part of a pattern of illegal activity
involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period, in violation of Title 31, United States Code,
Sections 5313(a), 5324(a)(2) and (d)(2); Title 31, Code ofFederal Regulations, Sections 103.22 and.
103.28; and Title 18, United States Code, Section 2.
(defendant's initials)
2. The defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed by the Court after
considering the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements (the "Sentencing Guidelines"
or "Guidelines"). The defendant acknowledges and understands that the Court will compute an
advisory sentence under the Sentencing Guidelines and that the applicable guidelines will be
determined by the Court relying in part on the results of a pre-sentence investigation by the Court's
probation office, which investigation will commence after the guilty plea has been entered. The
defendant is also aware that, under certain circumstances, the Court may depart from the advisory
sentencing guideline range that it has computed, and may raise or lower that advisory sentence under
the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant is further aware and understands that the Court is
required to consider the advisory guideline range determined under the Sentencing Guidelines, but
is not bound to impose that sentence; the Court is permitted to tailor the ultimate sentence in light
of other statutory concerns, and such sentence may be either more severe or less severe than the
Sentencing Guidelines' advisory sentence. Knowing these facts, the defendant understands and
acknowledges that the Court has the authority to impose any sentence within and up to the statutory
maximum authorized by law for the offenses identified in paragraph 1 and that the defendant may
not withdraw his guilty plea solely as a result of the sentence imposed.
3. The defendant also understands and acknowledges that the court may impose a
statutory maximum term ofimprisonment of up to I 0 years, followed by a term of supervised release
of up to 3 years. In addition to a term ofimprisonment and supervised release, the court may impose
a fine of up to $500,000.
4. The defendant further understands and acknowledges that, in addition to any sentence
imposed under paragraph 3 of this plea agreement, a special assessment in the amount of$300 will
2 (defendant's initials)
be imposed. The defendant agrees that any special assessment imposed shall be paid at the time of
sentencing.
5. The Office reserves the right to inform the Court and the probation office of all facts
pertinent to the sentencing process, including all relevant information concerning the offenses
committed, whether charged or not, as well as concerning the defendant and the defendant's
background. Subject only to the express terms of any agreed-upon sentencing recommendations
contained in this plea agreement, the Office further reserves the right to make any recommendation
as to the quality and quantity of punishment.
6. The Office agrees that it will recommend that the Court reduce by 2 levels the
sentencing guideline level applicable to the defendant's offense, pursuant to Section 3 E 1.1 (a) of the
Sentencing Guidelines, based upon the defendant's recognition and affirmative and timely
acceptance of personal responsibility. If at the time of sentencing the defendant's offense level is
determined to be 16 or greater, the Office will make a motion requesting an additional one level
decrease, pursuant to Section 3 E 1.1 (b) of the Sentencing Guidelines, stating that the defendant has
assisted authorities in the investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by timely notifying
authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid
preparing for trial and permitting the government and the Court to allocate their resources
efficiently. Nevertheless, the Office will not be required to make this motion or recommendation
if the defendant: (a) fails or refuses to make a full, accurate and complete disclosure to the probation
office of the circumstances surrounding the relevant offense conduct; (b) is found to have
misrepresented facts to the government prior to entering into this plea agreement; or (c) commits
any misconduct after entering into this plea agreement, including but not limited to, committing a
3 (defendant's inltials)
state or federal offense, violating any term of release, or making false statements or
misrepresentations to any governmental entity or official.
7. The Office and the defendant agree that, although not binding on the probation office
or the Court, they will jointly recommend that the Court make the following findings and
conclusions as to the sentence to be imposed:
(a) Under Sentencing Guidelines 2Sl.3(a)(2) and 2Bl.1(b)(l), the value of
the funds is more than $120,000, but less than $200,000;
(b) Under Sentencing Guidelines 2 S 1.3 (b )(2 )(B), the defendant committed the
offense as part of a pattern of unlawful activity involving more than $100,000 in a 12-month period;
and
(c) Under Sentencing Guidelines 3B 1.1 and 3B 1.2, the defendant should not
receive an aggravating role offense level increase nor a mitigating role offense level decrease.
8. The defendant also agrees that the defendant shall assist this Office in all
proceedings, whether administrative or judicial, involving the forfeiture to the United States of all
rights, title, and interest, regardless of their nature or form, in all assets, including real and personal
property, cash and other monetary instruments, wherever located, which the defendant or others to
his knowledge have accumulated as a result of illegal activities. Such assistance will involve an
agreement on defendant's part to the entry of an order enjoining the transfer or encumbrance of
assets which may be identified as being subject to forfeiture. Additionally, the defendant agrees to
identify as being subject to forfeiture all such assets, and to assist in the transfer of such property
to the United States by delivery to this Office upon this Office's request, all necessary and
appropriate documentation with respect to said assets, including consents to forfeiture, quit claim
MD.
deeds and any and all other documents necessary to deliver good and marketable title to said
property.
9. The defendant further agrees to forfeit to the United States voluntarily and
immediately all of his right, title and interest to any and all assets, and/or their substitutes which are
subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853. Those assets are the
$3,987 in U.S. currency seized by the Internal Revenue Service, as specified in the Indictment,
which constitutes property subject to forfeiture pursuant to Title 31, United States Code, Section
5317(c)(l), and Title 21, United States Code, Section 853.
10. The defendant knowingly and voluntarily agrees to waive any claim or defense he
may have under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, including any claim of
excessive fine or penalty with respect to the forfeited assets.
11. The defendant is aware that Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742, affords the
defendant the right to appeal the sentence imposed in this case. Acknow I edging this, in exchange
for the undertakings made by the Office in this plea agreement, the defendant hereby waives all
rights conferred by Section 3742 to appeal any sentence imposed, including any restitution order,
or to appeal the manner in which the sentence was imposed, or to collaterally attack the conviction,
any sentence imposed, or the manner in which sentence was imposed, including any restitution
order, pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Sections 2241, 2254, 2255, or any other applicable
provision, unless the sentence exceeds the maximum permitted by statute or is the result of an
upward departure from the Guideline range that the Court establishes at sentencing. The defendant
further understands that nothing in this plea agreement shall affect the Office's right and/or duty to
appeal as set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742(b). However, if the Office appeals
the defendant's sentence pursuantto Section 3742(b ), the defendant shall be released from the above
waiver of appellate rights. By signing this plea agreement, the defendant acknowledges that he has
discussed the appeal and collateral attack waiver set forth in this plea agreement with defendant's
attorney. The defendant further agrees, together with the Office, to request that the Court enter a
specific finding that the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal the sentence to be imposed in this
case was knowing and voluntary.
12. The defendant is aware that the sentence has not yet been determined by the Court.
The defendant also is aware that any estimate of the probable sentencing range or sentence that
the defendant may receive, whether that estimate comes from the defendant's attorney, the Office,
or the probation office, is a prediction, not a promise, and is not binding on the Office, the probation
office, or the Court. The defendant understands further that any recommendation that the Office
makes to the Court as to sentencing, whether pursuant to this agreement or otherwise, is not binding
on the Court and the Court may disregard the recommendation in its entirety. The defendant
understands and acknowledges, as previously acknowledged in paragraph 2 above, that the
defendant may not withdraw the defendant's guilty plea based upon the Court's decision not to
accept a sentencing recommendation made by the defendant, the Office, or a recommendation made
jointly by both the defendant and the Office.
13. In the event the defendant in fact pleads guilty, and otherwise fully complies with the
provisions ofthis agreement, the United States and the defendant agree that the defendant's truthful
statements, provided to the government, will not be used against the defendant under Sentencing
Guidelines 1B1.8(a) (as limited by Sentencing Guidelines 1B1.8(b)).
M-D.
In the event that for any reason the defendant does not plead guilty or otherwise fully comply
with any of the provisions of this agreement, the defendant agrees and understands that he thereby
waives any protection afforded by 1B1.8(a). The defendant further understands that in the event
that, for any reason, the Defendant does not plead guilty, any statements made by the defendant
under this agreement or as part of any plea discussions or as part of any attempted or actual
cooperation with the government will be fully admissible against the defendant in any civil or
criminal proceedings, notwithstanding any prior agreement with the government.
14. This is the entire agreement and understanding between the United States and the
defendant. There are no other agreements, promises, representations, or understandings unless
contained in a letter from the United States Attorney's Office executed by all parties and counsel
prior to the change of plea.
Date: q /oCf

Date: 9 , L{ 0 cr
JEFFREY H. SLOMAN
ACTING UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By:
By:-= w
MUNTHER DUA YBES
DEFENDANT
7
-
M .J) ,
(defendant's initials)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO: 09-20732-CR-GRAHAM
Plaintiff,
vs.
MUNTHER DUA YBES,
Defendant. ORDER ON SENTENCING
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ /
YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to appear in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on Monday, November 23, 2009 at 4:00p.m. for imposition
of sentence. On the scheduled date, report to the Wilkie D. Ferguson Jr., U.S. Courthouse,
Courtroom 13-4, Thirteenth Floor, 400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. You
will receive no further notice.
If the above-named defendant has executed a bond, this notice advises the defendant
that failure to appear as directed herein could result in being charged with a violation of the
Comprehensive Crime Control Act (18 U.S.C. Sec. 3146), which carries a maximum
sentence of up to ten (1 0) years imprisonment and a fine of $25,000, or both, upon
conviction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a Pre-Sentence Investigation Report shall be
completed. Defense Counsel shall report this date to the United States Probation Office, 9th
Floor South, WILKIE D. FERGUSON, JR., U.S. COURTHOUSE, 400 North Miami Avenue
for an interview and further instructions. Defendant(s) on bond shall also report this date
with Defense Counsel.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the assigned Assistant US Attorney will
immediately provide the US Probation Office the necessary information to prepare the
Prosecution Section of the Pre-Sentence Report. In addition, all counsel are reminded to
comply with Administrative Order 95-02 and the Local Rules of this Court which
relate to the sentencing phase of the case. (See L.R. 88.8).
..
All motions for Return of Property shall be filed not later than ten ( 1 0) days from the date
of the plea or conviction. The Government shall respond not later than seven (7) days from
receipt of the defendants motion. Untimely Motions for Return of Property can be deemed
waived. All property issues shall be resolved at or prior to sentencing.
DONE AND ORDERED in open Court this day l4
1
h of September, 2009.
QAJL.itz
DONALD L. GRAHAM
United States District Judge
DEFENSE COUNSEL: David G. Vinikoor. Esg.
GOVERNMENT COUNSEL: Jeffrey E. Tsai. AUSA
GUILTY PLEA
TRIAL
BOND
(X)
( )
(X)
INTERPRETER:
PRISONER NO. #
DEFENDANT REMANDED ( )
2
vs.
MUNTHER DUAYBES,
Defendant.

FACTUAL PROFFER
The United States of America and defendant Munther Duaybes agree that, if this case went
to trial, the government would establish the following facts beyond a reasonable doubt:
The defendant has owned and operated MDPL, Inc., a registered Florida corporation since
November 8, 2005. The corporation does business in the state as Mark's Check Cashing Store. The
store registered as a money service business on November 8, 2006, and constitutes a "financial
institution" (as defined under applicable federal law) that must comply with currency transaction
report ("CTR") filing requirements, the Bank Secrecy Act, and attendant regulations. Specifically,
a CTR must. be filed with the Internal Revenue Service for any financial transaction exceeding
$10,000. A check cashing business like Mark's Check Cashing Store must file one CTR for all the
financial transactions that an individual conducts in a day. The CTR reporting form states in plain
terms that a money service business must disclose the individual who conducts a financial
transaction.
7
k A , D
lh \1" ( .
From on or about Wai'&A through on or about May 8, 2009, the defendant caused
Mark's Check Cashing Store to file 1,387 CTRs regarding over $42 million in financial transactions.
In particular, during this time, the defendant's business filed CTRs listing JH American Construction
Corp. ("JH American") and Jose Navarro as the entities conducting check cashing transactions.
For example, on three occasions in September and October 2008, as outlined in the
Information, Duaybes filed CTRs that disclosed the transactions' payee as JH American and Navarro
despite the fact that the true payee was neither JH American or Navarro. In two of those instances,
which law enforcement audio and video recorded, a cooperating witness represented himself to
Duaybes at Mark's Check Cashing Store as a business owner in need of check-cashing services in
order to pay off-the-books employees. Duaybes offered the use of JH American as the check payee
in order to mask the true nature of the cooperating witness' transaction. Accordingly, on September
19th and September 26th, as set forth in Counts 1 and 2, the cooperating witness presented checks
to Duaybes made payable to JH American. Duaybes negotiated the checks and returned the cash
(less a fee) back to the cooperating witness. Subsequently, Duaybes filed two CTRs for those
transactions in which he disclosed JH American and Navarro-not the cooperating witness-as the
entity/individual who cashed the checks.
Similarly, on October 10, 2008, Duaybes negotiated a check issued by Omega Flooring LLC
made payable to JH American despite the fact that the check was cashed by an individual
unaffiliated with JH American. Duaybes subsequently submitted a CTR that falsely stated that JH
American and Navarro conducted the transaction.
In all, from April through December 2008, the defendant disclosed JH American and
Navarro in 128 CTRs regarding 1,253 financial transactions worth over $7.5 million. Of these
CTRs, the
2
government can establish relevant conduct and charged conduct over 45 financial transactions
totaling approximately $183,000.
By:

Date: 9 \Y O\
Respectfully submitted,
R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

JEFFREY E. TSAI
ASSIST ANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
if.CviD G. OOR
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
MUNTHER DUA YBES
DEFENDANT
3
KEM:mjp
Plaintiff,
vs.
MUNTHER DUAYBES,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon motion of the United States for entry of a preliminary
order of forfeiture. Being fully advised in the premises the Court finds as follows:
1. On August 26, 2009, the United States Attorney filed an Information charging
MUNTHER DUAYBES with a violation of Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5313 and 5324.
2. The Information further sought the forfeiture of the defendants interest in any
property involved in the offense including $3,987 in United States currency.
3. On September 14, 2009, the defendant pled guilty to three counts of the Information
and agreed to forfeit his interest in $3,987.00 U.S. currency as property involved in the offense [DE
#13].
4. Based on the guilty plea, the Court finds the government has established the requisite
nexus between the property and the offense, and for good cause shown thereby, it is hereby:
Case 1:09-cr-20732-DLG Document 15-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2009 Page 1 of 3
2
ORDERED that:
1. All right and interest of defendant Munther Duabyes in $3,987.00 in U.S. currency
is hereby forfeited to the United States of America.
2. The Internal Revenue Service, or any duly authorized law enforcement official, may
seize and take custody of the property pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 853(a).
3. Pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(1), and the Attorney
Generals authority to determine the manner of publication of an order of forfeiture in a criminal
case, the United States forthwith shall publish notice of this Order on an official government
internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) for at least thirty (30) consecutive days. The United States shall
state in the notice that any person, other than the defendant, having or claiming a legal interest in
the seized currency must file a petition with the Court within thirty (30) days of the final publication
of the notice or receipt of actual notice, whichever is earlier; that the petition shall be for a hearing
to adjudicate the validity of the petitioners alleged interest in the seized currency; the petition shall
be signed by the petitioner under penalty of perjury, shall set forth the nature and extent of the
petitioners right, title and interest in the currency and shall set fort any additional facts supporting
the petitioners claim and the relief sought.
4. The United States shall provide, to the extent practicable, direct written notice to any
person known to have an alleged interest in the property that is the subject of the Order of Forfeiture
in addition to the published notice.
It is further:
ORDERED that upon adjudication of all third party interests, this Court will enter a Final
Order of Forfeiture pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n) in which all interests
will be addressed. If no claims are filed within 30 days of the final publication or receipt of actual
3
notice, whichever is earlier, then pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n)(7), this
Order shall be deemed a final order of forfeiture, and the Internal Revenue Service, or any duly
authorized law enforcement official, shall dispose of the property forfeited hereunder according to
law.
DONE and ORDERED at Miami, Florida on this __________ day of __________, 2009.
____________________________________
DONALD L. GRAHAM
cc: AUSA Karen E. Moore (2 certified copies)
KEM:mjp
Plaintiff,
vs.
MUNTHER DUAYBES,
Defendant.
/
UNITED STATES MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE
The United States of America moves for entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture pursuant
to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853, and Rule 32.2(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure and in support thereof submits the following points and authorities:
1. On August 26, 2009, The United States filed an Information charging MUNTHER
DUAYBES, with knowingly causing a financial institution to file a false CTR report in violation of
Title 31, United States Code, Section 5313(a) and 5324(a)(2) [DE #13] .
2. The Information further sought the forfeiture of the defendants interest in any
property involved in the violations, including but, not limited to $3,987.00 in United States currency.
3. On September 14, 2009, Munther Duaybes pled guilty to three counts of the
Information and agreed to forfeit his right, title and interest in $3,987.00 in U.S. currency.
4. Title 31, United States Code, 5317(c)(1) provides in part as follows:
The court in imposing sentence for this violation of any conspiracy
to commit such violation, shall order the defendant to forfeit all
property, real or personal, involved in the offense and any property
traceable, thereto...
5. Rule 32.2(b)(2) provides that once the Court finds that property is subject to
forfeiture:
it must promptly enter a preliminary order of forfeiture setting forth
the amount of any money judgment or directing the forfeiture of
specific property without regard to any third partys interest in all or
part of it. Determining whether a third party has such an interest
must be deferred until any third party files a claim in an ancillary
proceeding under Rule 32.2(c).
6. Rule 32.2(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:
[t]he entry of a preliminary order of forfeiture authorizes the
Attorney General (or a designee) to seize the specific property
subject to forfeiture; to conduct any discovery the court considers
proper in identifying, locating or disposing of the property; and to
commence proceedings that comply with any statutes governing
third-party rights. At sentencing - or at any time before sentencing
if the defendant consents - the order of forfeiture becomes final as
to the defendant and must be made a part of the sentence and
included in the judgment. The court must include in the order of
forfeiture conditions reasonably necessary to preserve the propertys
value pending any appeal.
The form of order submitted in this matter provides for the forfeiture of all the defendants
right, title, claim and interest in the $3,987.00 in United States currency; for inclusion of the order
of forfeiture as part of the defendants sentence and the judgment in this case; for publication of
notice of the forfeiture of the same in these proceedings; permits the institution of discovery by the
government to locate assets ordered forfeited and/or to expedite ancillary proceedings for the
adjudication of third party petition claims if any; and provides for the final forfeiture of the property
noted therein if no petitions are filed; all pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 853 and Rule 32.2 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
3
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based upon the foregoing, and the other matters of record in these
proceedings, and for good cause shown thereby, the United States requests the entry of the attached
proposed preliminary order of forfeiture.
J EFFREY H. SLOMAN
BY: s/ karen E. Moore
KAREN E. MOORE(Court ID #A5500043)
Karen.moore@usdoj.gov
99 N.E. 4th Street, 7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132-2111
Telephone: (305) 961-9058
Facsimile: (305) 536-4089
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that, on October 14, 2009, I electronically filed the foregoing
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.
s/ Karen E. Moore
KAREN E. MOORE
Assistant U.S. Attorney
M. HUSSAM ALAYOUBI, M.D., F.A.C.C.
Diplomate. American Board Of Cardiovascular Diseases
Diplomate. American Board Of Internal Medicine
PATIENT NAME:
DATE OF CONSULTATION:
REFERRING PHYSICIAN:
Dear Neena:
Duaybes, Munther
11/11/09
Neena Gupta, M.D.
590 I, Colonial Drive, Suite 208
Margate, Florida 33063
Telephone: (954) 590-2660
Fax: (954) 590-2677
I saw Mr. Duaybes at the office for cardiac evaluation. He originally was seen on
October 20, 2009. He Is a nice 48-year-old gentleman with multiple risk factors of
underlying coronary artery disease, originally from Jordan. His history of peripheral
vascular disease has been diagnosed and treated conservatively now. The patient has seen
me today at the office for evaluation. He has no increased risk factors. No chest pain. He
denies angina, myocardial infarction, or any heart failure symptoms. He has had no
palpitations and no previous history of coronary artery disease. I have seen him a few
years ago for his peripheral vascular disease. He has been stable from that regard.
PAST MEDICAL HISTORY
Diabetes for the last two years, peripheral vascular disease, history of hypercholesterolemia
but no hypertension, obesity.
PAST SURGICAL HISTORY
He is status post pericardia I window and lung mass surgery.
ALLERGIES
He is not allergic to medications.
MEDICATIONS
His current list of medications included metformin, gemfibrozil, Hyzaar, Coreg, and baby
aspirin.
SOCIAL HISTORY
He is a smoker of two packs per day. He denies alcohol or drug abuse. He is married and
has two children.
REVIEW OF SYSTEMS
Otherwise unremarkable except for his diabetes.
PHYSICAL EXAMINATION
Blood pressure 122/78, heart rate 87, respirations 20, and weight is 199 pounds. His neck
veins are not distended. There is no bruit. Lungs are clear to auscultation. Heart sounds
51 and 52 are normal In character. There is no significant gallop or murmur noted.
Abdomen is soft and benign. Extremities show no edema, cyanosis, or clubbing. Neurologic
exami nation reveals the patient to be awake, alert, and oriented x3. No focal deficits.
Exhibit A
9454405_00_ 46_Duaybes_Munther_Letter_20_ Page 1 of 2
Munther Duaybes
Page 2 of 2
LABORATORY DATA
EKG showed sinus rhythm. Consider old inferior wall MI, old anteroseptal MI, and left
atrium enlargement.
IMPRESSION
1. Grossly abnormal EKG, consider old silent two myocardial infarctions.
2. Diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension.
3. Peripheral vascular disease.
4. History of pericarditis.
RECOMMENDATION
From cardiology standpoint, the patient underwent a stress test for evaluation of any
underlying ischemia due to his increased risk factors, his stressors and grossly abnormal
EKG. His stress test showed apical ischemia and his echocardiogram showed normal
ejection fraction and left ventricular hypertrophy. I have discussed the results of these
tests with him and he would need cardiac catheterization to delineate his coronary artery
anatomy. He is currently stressed out and does not have much of the symptoms; however,
his risk factors and his EKGs are concerning. I had advised him to proceed with cardiac
catheterization to delineate his coronary artery anatomy.
M. Hussam Alayoubi, M.D.
MHA/SWG
Dictated but not verified, subject to dictation/ t ranscription variance.
9454405_00_ 46_Duaybes_Munther_Letter_20_ Page 2 of2
TO: The Honorable Judge Graham
united states District J udge
Dear Judge Graham:
Your Honor, my name is Patr1c1a Louise ouaybes. I am the wife of
Munther Jamil ouaybes. we have been married for almost nineteen years
and the Lord has blessed our marriage with two wonderful children,
christina and Michael.
Your Honor, two years ago when doctors told me to call my family
to have them here because it did not look like he would recover and
that death was certain, I went into shock. Until that very moment,
until those doctors uttered those words, I did not realize the depth
of my love for my husband. I never even thou9ht about my life without
him and to this day cannot bring myself to th1nk of living without
him. My husband has always been there for me . I prayed to the Lord and
asked him for his life. The Lord did grant me, this prayer. After
nineteen years together, I am not complete without him. Please, Your
Honor, I am asking you not to take him from me. I need him in my life.
I sincerely hope that when you read my letter and the other
letters sent to you by Munther 's friends and family, that Your Honor
will be persuaded to show leniency when you sentence him. My husband
is good man . He did plead guilty in your courtroom and has taken
responsibilty for his wrongdoing. I believe, Your Honor, he does
deserves leniency. We have suffered greatly from his wrongdoin9 and
have continued to do so to this very day. Please grace our fam1ly with
your courts mercy.
Thank you for your time and thank you for your consideration.
si ncerely your s ,
Patricia
.........
Exhibit B
......
Bari-Sue Goldberg
Coconut Creek, Fl. 33073
Honorable Judge Graham :
My name is Bari-Sue Goldberg, and I am a housewife, and the mother of two sons both in the
United States Army. I am asking you to understand the person who is here today before you,
Munther Duaybes.
I have known Munther Duaybes for many years. He has been a very good friend to me, and our to
community, and our local high school. Munther has been very supportive of our local JROTC
programs' students and their well-being. An example of his kindness, last year when the kids
were in need of funds to go to the state championships, he stepped up to the plate and helped
them out by providing the funds to feed them.
Munther is a wonderful and loving father to Christina and Michael, and a devoted and loving
husband to Patricia, and a fabulous son in law to Patricia's mother Connie, and Patricia's entire
family. Mtmther is an all around asset to anyone who knows him in any capacity.
In 2007, I watched Munther in the hospital on a ventilator in the cardiac care unit of Coral
Springs Hospital, fight with his very last breath to stay alive for his family. He was very close to
death in an induced coma, and came out of it because he is a survivor.
I arn hoping that you give Munther a second chance by allowing him probation, as it would be
detrimental to his family for him to be incarcerated. He is a great human being, who has
accomplished more then most.
He is a wonderful person who is always willing to lend a helping band, and has always been there
in a time of need to all who know him. He is a kind and generous hearted person who regaros the
law and the value of life. I hope that you can take into consideration how this situation will .have
such a negative impact on not just his family but to all who know him.
Sincerely,
~ ~ ... ~
~ ~
Bari-Sue Goldberg
ovember I I , 2009
To the Honorable Judge Graham:
My name is Luis C. Evans. I am writing this letter on the behalf of my brother-in-law, Munther
"Mark" Duaybes. I have known Mark for almost 20 years when he matTied my sister. Patricia. I
am a husband and a father of two children. I proudly served in the Uruted tales Army for 14
yerus and I an1 a veteran of the Bosnian Conflict and have served two tours of duty in Iraq.
I would not be the man 1 am today if it wasn t for Mru-k. Several years ago, when my daughter
was a newborn, my wife and I were broke. 1 didn't make enough money to pay all the bills and
then we had a new mouth to feed. Mark was there to give me money to provide for my family.
He told me that money comes and goes, but you're family is worth living for. A year later. I
needed to go to school to get a promotion but I didn't have tbe money to get there. Mark came
through again and loaned me $200. I told him I would pay him back when l get back on track but
he wouldn't hear of it. lie told me that the only pay back he wanted was for me to take care of
my family. I became a taff Sergeru1t when I completed school because of Mark's help.
My family and r came to Florida a few years ago for vacation. I shook Marks hand and thanked
him for all that he's helped me to accomplished. lie just looked at my wife holding om son in
her arms and my daughter playing with his kids and told me. "It was all worth it just to see yow-
family happy.'
Mruk Ouaybes is a smart, family oriented man. I will always be grateful to him for all that he's
done for me and my family. I would take his place ifl could. He deserves whatever leniency
that you could grant him. Thank you for yow- time.
Sincerely,
Luis C. Evans
Colorado Springs, CO 80906
TO: The Honorable Judge Graham
Dear Judge Graham:
November 17, 2009
Hello, Your Honor. I hope that when you receive my letter, your arc in good health and
that God has blessed you and your family with a joyous Thanksgiving holiday.
My name is Conrada A. Evans. I am the widow of Retired MSGT George L. Evans and
lhe mother of six children, ten grandchildren and two great-grandchildren. My daughter,
Patricia, is married to Munther "Mark" Duaybes. This coming J anuary, they will have been
married for nineteen years. Your Honor, I lo\'e my son-in-law very much and I call Mark my
son. Although he was very ashamed of his crime, my son has told me he has accepted
responsibilty for it and that be has plead guilty in your courtroom this past September. My
entire family arc anxiously awaiting your sentencing decision in this matter on December 1st.
My sincerest hope is that Your Honor's sentencing decision will take into consideration
of my son's life long acts of kindness, love, and devotion towards his wife, his children, his
family and his friends. T can tell Your Honor that I have been a witness to Mark's good
character. He is a good man.
In December 2000, George, my husband for over thirty-two years, passed from
complications due to Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. The grief oflosing my husband '"'as and still is
indescribable. At lhe time, I \\'aS emotionally and financially overwhelmed. Mark not only
"stepped up" and paid for my husband's funeral, he made it possible for George to have a
military burial with full honors. Six months later, his own father passed away from
complications wilh hearl surgery. Despite his own grief, Mark shielded his mother and family.
He made sure that I and his mother were taken care of financially. Although Mark was ne,er
asked, he is there for me emotionally and continues to be.
Mark's support for me and his family has never wahered, e\'en as he continues to suffer
horribly financially and emotionally from this case. I pray that Your Honor will sec my son's
selflessness while facing great adversity as testament to his true good nature and strong values.
His ,alues has guided him to take full responsibility for his wrongdoing. I pray that Your Honor
show mercy for my son and his family at this time. Please grace our family with leniency. I ask
Your ll onor to sentence my son lo probation.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully Yours,
''" 1 c
Conrada A. Evans
November 1 8, 2009
The Honorable Donald L. Graham
Re: Character letter for Munther (Mark) Duaybes
Dear Judge Graham:
This letter is a reference of character regarding Munther (Mark) Duaybes. My name
is Steven L. Brashers, P.E., a practicing professional engineer and President of
Capstone Engineering Services, Inc. in Boca Raton, Florida.
I have been a friend of Mark since 1993. Our families have been friends for over
1 5 years and have vacationed together. I know Mark to be an honest, industrious,
and hardworking family man who is community-minded. He has worked hard in
his personal and professional life.
I am aware of Mark's guilty plea. I don't know the specifics of his case but I know
that Mark has shown remorse for his actions. I am confident that Mark will not
knowingly break any check-cashing rules again.
I ask that you grant Mark a sentence of probation. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Steven L. Brashers, P.E.
President
Capstone Engineering Services, Inc.
21 797 Mountain Sugar Lane
Boca Raton, FL 33433
Nover:1ber 19, 200Q
.\lfaria Jackson
Clarksvil le, TN 37042
Dear Honorable Judge Graham,
r, Mana Jackson reside in Clarksville: TN is writing you in behalf of Mark Ouaybes (my
bother-in-law).
Marl< is a good man, Good husband to my sister (Patricia Duaybes). Good hard working
person and a great provider for his fami ly. Grear father to my niece Christina and nephew
Michael. He is a wonderful Dad and does anything and everything for hts children.
Provide very well and good safe home for his family.
When I visir my sister famJly. I am so comfortable wirh them because he makes sure
your welcome anytime. We would watch foolball games together, he is an Alabama fan
but I am a LST.: fan. He is such a great brother-in-law and just fun to be around. H'e wiU
do anything to help you if he can b"...cause he is a caring person. Patricia has a good man.
My prayers to my fami ly.
Thank you,
November 12, 2009
4 Ever-Green Lawn Care RKP Inc.
P.O. Box 480187
Delray Beach. FL. 33448
(954) 749-5954 Office (56 1) 742-0661
(954) 749-4483 Fax (561) 742-0614
Dear l lonorable Judge Graham:
My name is Marc Rynar and I own a landscape company and this letter is a letter of
character regarding Munther (Mark) Duaybes.
I have known Munther (Mark) Duaybes for over 15 years. I know him to be a
hardworking, family man who is community-minded. He has worked very hard in his job,
and also as a company owner.
lam aware of the events regarding Mark's plea. I truly believe that Mark has already
suffered extensively for hi s actions. I believe he is truly despondent regarding what he
has put his family through. lie has a good family. Iris wife and children are certainly not
deserving of what they have been through.
I believe that a prison term will serve as a tremendous hardship for his wife. who will
bear the responsibility of trying to repay the cost of the court case. l believe that Mark' s
children will be tremendously adversely affected if he is required to go to prison.
I believe that the loss of his credentials, his loss of accreditation for his vocation. and
his loss of respect in the community, as well as those freedoms that he was afforded prior
to hi s improper decision to do what he did. may have taken a bigger effect than keepi ng
him out oftbe work force.
Thank you for taking the time and consideration of thi s letter.
The Honorabl e Donald L Gra ha m
United States District J udge
Re: Munt her Duaybes
Monday, November 02, 2009
Dear Honorable Judge Graham,
This is a letter of character regarding Munther Duaybes.
My name is Robert Gass, 1 am an accountant that has been practicing in Southern
Florida for the past 25 years. I am also a 20 year, badged and accredited, member of the
press pool at NASA's Kennedy Space Center. I have been friends with Munther for the
past five years. J not only know him but I also know his wife and family.
Throughout this time I have found Munther to be an industrious and hard working
family man who immigrated to this country in hopes of building a better life for himself
and his family than the one he could have had in his home country.
I am aware of the events leading up to Munther's guilty plea and I have to say that
truly believe that this man has already suffered extensively for hi s actions. He is
humiliated by the entire affaire and deeply shamed by hi s actions. He is particularly
ashamed of what thi s is doing to his family. His ageing Mother, back in Jordan, is
distraught. His children are wondering what they are going to do without their father (if
he does in fact receive jail time for his offence). His wife is anguished and his brothers
wanted to drop everything and fly all the way from Jordan so that they could stand by
him during this ordeal.
I strongly believe that an extended prison tem1 would prove to be a crushing blow to
Muntber's fami ly who are blameless in this affair. Without Munthar running the business
it is doubtful that it would survive. His wife and family would face significant hardships
in his absence due to loss of income and accumulating debt. Not to mention the
monumental legal bills.
Because of these things I would like to ask you, the judge, to grant Munther a lenient
sentence that would avoid jail. Munther is aware that what he did was wrong and he is
profoundly upset about the situation he has put himself and his family in. I strongly
believe that he has already learned a hard lesson that he will never forget. Removing him
from the workforce by putting him in jail would only result in financial hardship for his
family who depend on him for their support. I can not believe that he could be made to
regret hi s actio n he already does.

1

CASE NO.: 09-20732-CR-GRAHAM/TORRES


Plaintiff,

v.

MUNTHER DUAYBES,

Defendant.
______________________________/

DEFENDANT MUNTHER DUAYBES SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW, the Defendant, MUNTHER DUAYBES (hereinafter Mark),
through counsel, and respectfully moves this Honorable Court to impose a probationary sentence
at his sentencing scheduled for December 1, 2009. A sentence at that level is warranted based
upon Mark Duaybes role in this nonviolent, victimless offense which constituted his first
offense, his extraordinary acceptance of responsibility, his age, his poor health and exemplary
employment history, as well as his timely and substantial assistance to the government and the
fact that incarceration is not necessary to protect the public because of the unlikelihood that he
will ever again repeat the criminal conduct.
FACTS OF CASE AND MARK DUAYBES ROLE
Mark Duaybes was the owner and operator of a check cashing business, MDPL,
Inc. d/b/a: Marks Check Cashing Store, located in Lake Worth, Florida. His store was
registered as a money service business in November, 2006 and constitutes a financial institution
that must comply with currency transaction report (CTR) filing requirements. Mark was
obligated to file a CTR every time he conducted a financial transaction exceeding ten thousand
($10,000) dollars. Pursuant to that filing requirement, Mark was obligated to disclose detailed
information concerning each individual who conducted a transaction exceeding ten thousand

2
($10,000) dollars. On September 19, 26 and October 10, 2008, Mark, through his business,
Marks Check Cashing Store, filed CTRs indicating the payee to be J ose Navarro, a principal in
a business called J H American Construction Corp. Mark did so knowing that the actual payee
conducting the financial transaction was a person other than J ose Navarro. He had filed CTRs
in that manner for many years when he had written authorization to do so. Although Mark had
received authorization to cash checks made payable to J H American Construction Corp. when
presented by other designated persons, Mark recognizes that applicable CTRs should have
properly listed the name of the actual person receiving the funds rather than Navarro, who was
not present. He also recognizes that although he charged his normal check cashing fee in each
transaction and received no out of the ordinary financial gain, it was nevertheless wrong to file
CTRs containing the misleading information identifying the payee.
According to the governments analysis of Marks CTR filing history, from J uly
17, 2007 through May 8, 2009, Mark filed 1,387 CTRs for over forty two million dollars in
financial transactions. The government further revealed that from April through December,
2008, Mark disclosed J H American and Navarro as the payee in 128 CTRs regarding 1,253
financial transactions worth over 7.5 million dollars. Of those CTRs, the government has
maintained that it can establish $183,000 in fraudulent transactions. (PSIR at 4-6(9-12, 16).
STATUTORY SENTENCING FACTORS
It is now well established that as a result of the Supreme Court decision in United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the once mandatory Sentencing Guidelines are now
effectively advisory. Id. at 222. In an attempt to clarify the sentencing mandate of Booker, the
Supreme Court in Gall v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007), held that a district court
should begin all sentencing proceedings by correctly calculating the applicable Guidelines
range [t]he Guidelines are not the only consideration, however the district judge should then
consider all of the 3553(a) factors to determine whether they support the sentence requested by
a party and cautioned that in so doing the District J udge may not presume that the Guidelines

3
range is reasonable. Id. at 596-597. Indeed, in Rita v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2456 (2007), the
Supreme Court reiterated that the sentencing court does not enjoy the benefit of a legal
presumption that the Guidelines sentence should apply. Id. at 2465. J ust this year, the Supreme
Court again cautioned that The Guidelines are not only not mandatory, on sentencing courts;
they are also not to be presumed reasonable. Nelson v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 890, 892
(2009).
As this Court is aware, the first of the seven 3553(a) factors that a sentencing
court must consider is a broad command to consider the nature and circumstances of the offense
and the history and characteristics of the defendant. The second factor requires a District Court
to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the four
purposes of sentencing set forth in 3553(a)(2): retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and
rehabilitation. The third factor pertains to the kinds of sentences available while the fourth and
fifth factors relate to the Sentencing Guidelines and any relevant policy statement issued by the
Sentencing Commission. The sixth 3553(a) factor requires a consideration to avoid
unwarranted sentence disparities and the seventh addresses the need to provide restitution to
any victim.
The Supreme Court clearly held that it is always permissible to impose a lower
sentence if the within-Guidelines sentence is greater than necessary to serve these objectives of
sentencing. Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558, 563 (2007). Indeed, the District Court
may now consider even those mitigating factors that the advisory Guidelines prohibited or made
irrelevant. The district court sentence [below the guidelines] does not have to be justified as a
downward departure. United States v. Williams, 435 F.3d 1350 (11
th
Cir. 2006). The Supreme
Court left no room for doubt in holding that We reject an appellate rule that requires
extraordinary circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guideline range and in reiterating
that It has been uniform and consistent in the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing judge
to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique study in the

4
human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to
ensue. Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 595, 598.
APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY SENTENCING FACTORS AND
MITIGATING FACTORS WARRANTING A VARIANCE

Mark Duaybes, through undersigned counsel, urges this Court to consider the
following mitigating factors when determining what sentence is sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to satisfy the purposes of sentencing:
A. The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines
The Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR) set the base offense level at 6
pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2S1.3(2)(a). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1)(F) the base offense level
was increased ten (10) levels based upon the value of the funds reported in the CTRs being
more than $120,000 but not more than $200,000. Because Mark stipulated that the offense was
committed as part of a pattern of unlawful activity involving more than $100,000 in a twelve
month period, the offense level was increased an additional two (2) levels pursuant to U.S.S.G.
2S1.3(b)(2). After reductions for accepting responsibility for the offense, U.S.S.G. 3E1.1(a)
and (b), the final offense level is fifteen (15). That offense level, when coupled with Marks
clean criminal history (Category 1), results in an advisory Guideline imprisonment range of 18-
24 months (PSIR at 7 and 8, 18-27 and 13, 55).
1. The Enhancements Based Upon The Value Of The Funds Overstate
The Seriousness Of The Offense
As this Court is well aware, the sentence called for by the advisory Guidelines is
driven largely by the amount of the checks which were the subject of the CTRs filed by Mark
Duaybes. In determining the enhancements based upon the dollar amounts of the transactions,
the Guidelines utilize the exact same monetary scale applicable in cases of fraud and theft. As a
result, merely because the CTRs filed by Mark related to checks exceeding one hundred and
twenty thousand ($120,000) dollars but not more than two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars,

5
his advisory Guidelines sentence was enhanced exactly the same as an offender who embezzled
that very same amount of money. Even though the embezzler may have gained a financial profit
of two hundred thousand ($200,000) dollars, whereas Mark gained no profit out of the ordinary,
and even though the embezzler significantly victimized an innocent party, whereas no one was
victimized by Marks conduct, each, according to the advisory Guidelines, should be punished
the same. See United States v. Stuart, 22 F.3d 76 (3
rd
Cir. 1994) (the small profit actually made
might warrant a downward departure by analogy to 2F1.1, which states that strict application
of loss table can overstate the seriousness of the offense). In a totally unrelated case, J udge
Merritt in a dissenting opinion stated Therefore, in a case like this, the Guidelines are not a
reliable or even a rational guide to sentencing. United States v. Eversole, 487 F.3d 1024, 1037
(6
th
Cir. 2007). It is submitted that similarly the Guidelines are not a reliable or even rational
guide to sentencing in our case, when the same ten (10) level enhancement is applied in a CTR
filing case as it is in cases of fraud or theft.
Even more irrational, is the Guidelines additional enhancement of two (2) levels
based upon the CTRs relating to transactions in excess of one hundred thousand ($100,000)
dollars in a twelve (12) month period, pursuant to 2S1.3(b)(2) (PSIR at 7, 19). It
represents the kind of piling-on of points for which the guidelines have frequently been
criticized and illustrates the utter travesty of justice that sometimes results from the guidelines
fetish with abstract arithmetic, as well as the harm that guideline calculations can visit on human
beings if not cabined by common sense. United States v. Adelson, 441 F.Supp.2d 506, 510,
512 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
Since the enhancements applied in the present case are determined by reference to
the monetary tables applicable in fraud cases, ( 2B1.1), it is instructive that Application Note
19(C) of 2B1.1 acknowledges that There may be cases in which the offense level
substantially overstates the seriousness of the offense. In such cases, a downward departure may
be warranted. Even pre-Booker, it has been held that Where application of the guidelines

6
monetary tables bears little or no relationship to the defendants role in the offense and greatly
magnifies the sentence, the district court should have the discretion to depart downward. Stuart,
22 F.3d at 83. Here, Mark Duaybes received no extraordinary financial gain for his conduct, that
resulted in no actual, potential or even probable loss to anyone. Mark Duaybes financial
condition, as documented in the PSIR, demonstrates that he was not enriched by his relevant
conduct in this case. (PSIR at 11-13, 50-53). Application of the monetary tables utilized to
determine loss calculations in fraud cases, clearly overstates the seriousness of his offense.
2. Extraordinary Acceptance Of Responsibility
Mark Duaybes entered a plea of guilty notwithstanding undersigned counsels
legal advice that his case involved arguably meritorious defenses worthy of litigation. Marks
independent decision to plead guilty, notwithstanding that advice, was prompted in part by his
extreme remorse that he participated in wrongdoing after a law abiding life of almost fifty (50)
years. As a further demonstration of his acceptance of responsibility, before being criminally
charged, he offered to do anything and everything proactively to assist the government in related
investigations. And after being charged, he participated in comprehensive debriefings providing
substantial detailed information regarding parties unrelated to his case involved in similar
activities as well as proactively assisting the governments investigation of others involved in the
activities of J H American Construction Corp.
Pre-Booker departures and post-Booker variances have been approved in those
cases where the defendant exhibited extraordinary acceptance of responsibility. Where a
defendant demonstrated sincere remorse and acceptance of responsibility by significantly
depleting life savings upon paying restitution, the court approved a sentence of probation and
home confinement despite an advisory Guidelines sentence of twenty four (24) months
incarceration. United States v. Kim, 364 F.3d 1235 (11
th
Cir. 2004). See also United States v.
Faulks, 143 F.3d 133 (3
rd
Cir. 1998) (where defendant forgoes meritorious defense, he may show
extraordinary acceptance of responsibility which would warrant a departure).

7
Although it is unknown at this time whether the government intends to move for a
downward departure under 5K1.1 based upon Marks substantial assistance, variances on those
grounds are proper even despite a lack of motion by the government. See United States v.
Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 33 (2d Cir. 2006) (We agree that in formulating a reasonable sentence
a sentencing judge must consider the history and characteristics of the defendant and should
take under advisement the contention that a defendant made efforts to cooperate, even if those
efforts did not yield a Government motion for a downward departure). Even where a
defendants cooperation consisted merely of revealing to authorities how his crime was
accomplished, significant variances have been upheld. See for example, United States v. Ruff,
535 F.3d 999 (9
th
Cir. 2008) (where defendant pled guilty to embezzling $650,000 and where the
Guidelines were 30-37 months, a sentence of one day in jail and supervised release on condition
defendant spend one year in a community treatment center was deemed not unreasonable). Mark
Duaybes independent decision to plead guilty, notwithstanding the existence of arguably
meritorious defenses and his significant substantial assistance to the government constitutes
extraordinary acceptance of responsibility warranting a variance from the advisory Guidelines.
B. Mark Duaybes Offense, History and Characteristics
1. Nature and Circumstances of Offense
The advisory Guidelines range fails to take into account the Congressional
directive that the Guidelines reflect the general appropriateness of imposing a sentence other
than imprisonment in cases in which the defendant is a first offender who has not been convicted
of a crime of violence or an otherwise serious offense. 28 U.S.C. 994(j) (emphasis added). A
below Guidelines sentence has been held to be justified in the case of a first time offender, since
Consideration of this factor is consistent with 3553s directive that the sentence reflect the
need for just punishment, Id. 3553(a)(2)(A) and adequate deterrence, Id. 3553(a)(2)(B).
United States v. Baker, 445 F.3d 987, 992 (7
th
Cir. 2006). See also United States v. Polito, 215
Fed.Appx. 354, 2007 WL 313463 (5
th
Cir. J anuary 31, 2007) (unpublished) (where a defendant

8
convicted of possession of child pornography with a Guidelines score of 27-33 months received
a sentence of probation with one year home confinement that was deemed reasonable in part
because it was a first offense). The advisory Guidelines further fail to consider the length of time
that the defendant refrained from the commission of that first offense. See United States v.
Ward, 814 F.Supp. 23 (E.D.Va. 1993) (where a downward departure was deemed warranted
since the defendant had not committed his first offense until the age of forty-nine). Mark
Duaybes will be forty-nine (49) years old in three months.
2. History and Characteristics of Mark Duaybes
a. Marks Employment History And Character
Mark Duaybes was born in J ordan and as a Christian in a Muslim nation,
experienced significant religious discrimination. When he was eighteen (18) years old, Mark left
J ordan and came to the United States to attend college at the University of Alabama where he
graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree (PSIR at 10, 43). Ultimately, he settled in Miami
and became a naturalized United States citizen in 2004. Mark had been gainfully employed by
others his entire adult life, having previously worked for the same employer for eighteen years.
He became self-employed with M.D.P.L., Inc. d/b/a Marks Check Cashing Store in 2007 after
borrowing substantial funds against his house equity in order to open the business (PSIR at 10,
45). See United States v. Fuson, 215 Fed.Appx. 468, 2007 WL 414265 (6
th
Cir. February 8,
2007) (unpublished) (where the court upheld as reasonable a sentence of probation with six
months home confinement despite a Guidelines range of 24-30 months, based in part on a good
employment history). Similarly, the Third Circuit Court of Appeal recently held that a sentence
of two years probation and three months home confinement with no fine, despite an advisory
Guidelines range of 18-24 months incarceration was reasonable for a defendant found guilty of
two counts of wire fraud after a jury trial and who engaged in a sustained effort to obstruct the
investigation in order to hide his crime, based in part upon the sentencing courts findings that
this was an isolated mistake, by a well-regarded member of [the] community, who led an

9
honorable and lawful life until this point. United States v. Howe, 543 F.3d 128, 130-32 (3
rd

Cir. 2008). Each of those grounds relied upon by the Third Circuit apply with equal force to
Mark Duaybes, who unlike Howe, did not initiate a scheme to defraud the government, accepted
responsibility rather than proceeding to trial, and did not engage in a sustained effort to obstruct
the investigation.
In another recent case, a defendant was resentenced to five years probation,
including a one year term of home confinement, despite a Guidelines range of 46-57 months
imprisonment, after the Third Circuit remanded for sentencing upon determining that the Court
erred in refusing to impose the obstruction of justice enhancement. United States v.
Diambrosio, 2008 WL 732031 (E.D.Pa.) (emphasis added). Although Diambrosio was convicted
after a jury trial of ten counts of wire fraud for defrauding a stock trading firm of 2.8 million
dollars, a probationary sentence was imposed citing characteristics practically identical to those
of Mark Duaybes. In imposing the probationary sentence, the Court relied upon the fact that
Diambrosio, just like Mark Duaybes, had no prior criminal history, was convicted of conduct
that represents a marked exception to an otherwise law abiding life, had strong family and
community ties, had a history of consistent employment and already has paid a heavy
price for his offense since he has lost his job and is forever barred from the securities
industry. Id. at 3. Based upon Marks felony conviction in this case, he too will lose his license
to operate a check cashing store.
b. Marks Age
In an appropriate case, a trial court, in exercising the broad
discretion that Booker gives it, has a freer hand to account for a defendants age in its sentencing
analysis under 3353(a) than it had before Booker. See United States v. Davis, 458 F.3d 491
(6
th
Cir. 2006) and United States v. Gray, 453 F.3d 1323, 1325 (11
th
Cir. 2006) (where more than
a fifty percent Guidelines variance was deemed reasonable after considering the defendants age
among other factors); United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 1, 5 (1
st
Cir. 2006) (holding that a District

10
Courts consideration at sentencing of the defendants age was not inappropriate). Additionally,
it has been well documented that defendants over the age of forty (40) exhibit markedly lower
rates of recidivism. See United States v. Nellum, 2005 WL 300073, (N.D.Ind. February 3, 2005)
where a District Court found that in view of a Sentencing Commission report finding that
recidivism rates declined consistently as age increases, the defendants age can be an important
factor warranting a reduced sentence.
1
In view of Marks age and his lifetime free of crime
before this offense, it is most unlikely that Mark will ever again stray from his otherwise law
abiding life.
c. Marks Poor Health
Mark, who has had heart surgery performed in 2007, suffers from
high blood pressure, diabetes and peripheral arterial disease and is presently being treated by a
number of medical specialists requiring a number of daily medications as well as continued
medical treatment. See letter from M. Hussam Alayoubi, M.D., attached hereto as Exhibit A
(PSIR at 9, 40). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeal, in applying USSG 5H1.1 (2005) held
that the overarching policy contained in [5H1.1] is clear: in some situations, a district court
may impose a non-prison sentence when a defendant has serious medical needs. United States
v. Wadena, 470 F.3d 735, 739 (8
th
Cir. 2006). Wadena received a probationary sentence despite
an 18-24 months Guidelines sentence because the 2005 Guidelines state that courts may consider
departing downward to a non-prison sentence for an infirm defendant. See also United States
v. McFarlin, 535 F.3d 808 (8
th
Cir. 2008) (where a defendant convicted of conspiracy to
distribute drugs facing an advisory Guidelines sentence of 78-97 months received a sentence of
probation and home detention that was deemed reasonable in view of the defendants poor
health).

1
Report of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, measuring recidivism: the Criminal History Computation of the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines, at 12,28 (May 2004).

11

C. Retribution, Deterrence, Incapacitation and Rehabilitation
1. Post-Offense Rehabilitation
Even pre-Booker, downward departures based upon exceptional post-offense
rehabilitation efforts have been recognized. United States v. Sally, 116 F.3d 76, 82 (3
rd
Cir.
1997). Mark Duaybes CTR violation concerned business to business checks. Evidencing his
post-offense rehabilitation, in an abundance of caution, Mark has discontinued accepting
business to business checks except in very limited exceptions resulting in a significant loss of
income. Additionally, as noted above, Mark has demonstrated his post-offense rehabilitation
through his repeated efforts to cooperate with the government. Marks cooperation reflects his
effort to atone and demonstrates that he will respond to rehabilitative efforts. See Roberts v.
United States, 445 U.S. 552, 558 (1980).
2. Unlikelihood Of Re-Offending
Mark Duaybes is not unlike the defendant in United States v. Hadash, 408
F.3d 1080, 1084 (8
th
Cir. 2005), whose six level downward departure was upheld because the
court said the defendant was simply a law abiding citizen, who [did] an incredibly dumb
thing and was not the type of defendant the Guideline section was designed to punish. As a
result of Mark doing an incredibly dumb thing he will soon lose his license to cash checks and
if his wife is unable to operate the business alone, may very well also lose the business in which
he has invested almost all of the equity in his home.
2
See United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468,
470 (4
th
Cir. 2007) (where a 36 month downward departure was upheld on the basis of factors
including loss of teaching certificate, potential for rehabilitation, and a low chance of
recidivism). Departures have been granted based solely upon a defendants loss of a business,
that loss having already achieved some of the objectives required to be sought through the

2
Marks son and stepdaughter, who has severe medical problems, are dependent upon Mark for financial support to
remain in college.

12
sentencing process. See United States v. Gaind, 829 F.Supp. 669, 670 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); affd, 31
F.3d 73 (2d Cir. 1994). More important to Mark than the loss of his business license has been
the loss of his good name and reputation. Mark has cherished his good name and is devastated
by its loss.
3
Based upon the mitigating sentencing factors discussed above, it would not be
unreasonable to conclude that Mark Duaybes poses a low risk of re-offending and incarceration
is not necessary to protect the public. See United States v. Baker, 502 F.3d 465 (6
th
Cir. 2007)
(where a sentence of probation with one year home confinement was imposed despite a
sentencing Guidelines range of 27-33 months) and United States v. Whitehead, 532 F.3d 991 (9
th

Cir. 2008) (where a defendant who caused a loss of one million dollars and faced a 41-51 months
Guidelines sentence received a probationary sentence that was deemed reasonable in part
because the defendants crime did not pose the same danger to the community as many other
crimes). Indeed, in Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 589, the Supreme Court most recently considered the
appropriateness of a probationary sentence where the recommended Guidelines range was 30-37
months for a defendant who participated in a conspiracy to distribute ecstacy, cocaine and
marijuana. The Supreme Court in holding that this deviation from the Guidelines range was
reasonable, noted that a substantial restriction of freedom is involved in a term of supervised
release or probation.
CONCLUSION
There is never a good time to be incarcerated. For Mark, this is the worst of
times. He faces impending sentencing having lost his ability to continue operating his business.
He faces impending sentencing with savings depleted and a family dependant upon him for
financial support. He faces sentencing with the realization that his good name has been tarnished
and a lifetime of hard work and good deeds diminished by one late life misstep.

3
Mark Duaybes has felt so shamed by his present situation that he has even failed to tell most everyone, including
his elderly mother, about his arrest and conviction. The few friends and relatives that he has told have written letters
about Marks character, which are attached as Exhibit B.

13
In testifying before the Senate J udiciary Committee on February 14, 2007, J ustice
Anthony Kennedy stated that Our sentences are too long, our sentences are too severe, our
sentences are too harsh [and because there are so few pardons] there is no compassion in the
system. Theres no mercy in the system. For Mark Duaybes the question remains, what is
sufficient, but not greater than necessary to comply with the sentencing directives. J udge
Graham, in answering that question, I implore you to be merciful when sentencing this good and
decent man.

DAVID G. VINIKOOR, P.A.
Attorney for Defendant
420 S.E. 12
th
Street
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 522-2500
Facsimile: (954) 522-7278
Email: david@vinikoors.com
dascott1965@yahoo.com

By:_s/David G. Vinikoor_________________
DAVID G. VINIKOOR
FL BAR #195719

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been filed
electronically with the Clerk using the ECF system and is available for viewing and downloading
from the ECF system. I further certify that a copy was furnished to Assistant U.S. Attorney
J effrey E. Tsai, Economic Crimes Section, 99 N.E. Fourth Street, Suite 400, Miami, FL 33132
and to Patricia A. Borah, Sr. United States Probation Officer, United States Probation Office,
299 East Broward Blvd., Suite 409, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301, using the ECF system, this 20
th

day of November, 2009.
.
_s/David G. Vinikoor________________
DAVID G. VINIKOOR
USDC FLSD 2458 (Rev 09108)- Judgment in a Criminal Case
United States District Court
Southern District of Florida
MIAMI DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE
v. Case Number -1:09-20732-CR-GRAHAM-1
MUNTHER DUAYBES
USM Number: 82655-004
Counsel For Defendant: David G. Vinikoor, Esq.
Counsel For The United States: Jeffrey Tsai, AUSA
Court Reporter: Cary Horenkamp
The defendant pleaded guilty to Counts One, Two and Three of the Information.
The defendant is adjudicated guilty of the following offenses:
TITLE/SECTION NATURE OF
NUMBER OFFENSE OFFENSE ENDED
31 U.S.C. 5313(a), Filing of False Currency September 19, 2008
5324{a)(2) Transaction Reports
31 U.S.C. 5313(a), Filing of False Currency September 26, 2008
5324(a){2) Transaction Reports
31 U.S.C. 5313(a), Filing of False Currency October I 0, 2008
5324(a)(2) Transaction Reports
COUNT
2
3
Page I of 6
The defendant is sentenced as provided in the following pages of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.
It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name,
residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.
If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of any material changes in economic
circumstances.
Date oflmposition of Sentence:
Decembe 009
DONALD L. GRAHAM
December ,2_.
'2009
USDC FLSD 245B (Rev. 09/08) Judgment in a Criminal Case Page 2 of 6
DEFENDANT: MUNTHERDUAYBES
CASE NUMBER: 1:09-20732-CR-GRAHAM-1
IMPRISONMENT
The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term
of 18 months as to each of Counts One, Two and Three of the Information to run concurrently ..
The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons
before 2:00P.M. on February 1, 2010.
RETURN
I have executed this judgment as follows:
Defendant delivered on _________ to ---------------
at--------------------' with a certified copy of this judgment.
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
By: _____________ _
Deputy U.S. Marshal
USDC FLSD 2458 (Rev 09/08)- Judgment 1n a Criminal Case Page 3 of 6
DEFENDANT: MUNTHER DUA YBES
CASE NUMBER: I :09-20732-CR-GRAHAM-1
SUPERVISED RELEASE
Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release for a concurrent term of three (3) years.
The defendant must report to the probation office in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from
the custody of the Bureau of Prisons. The defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crime.
The defendant shall not unlawfully possess a controlled substance. The defendant shall refrain from any unlawful use of a
controlled substance. The defendant shall submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two
periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court.
The defendant shall not possess a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or any other dangerous weapon.
The defendant shall cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer.
Ifthisjudgment imposes a fine or a restitution, it is a condition of supervised release that the defendant pay in accordance
with the Schedule of Payments sheet of this judgment.
The defendant must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as any additional
conditions on the attached page.
STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
I. The defendant shall not leave the judicial district without the permission of the court or probation officer;
2. The defendant shall report to the probation officer and shall submit a truthful and complete written report within the first five days of each
month;
3. The defendant shall answer truthfully all inquiries by the probation officer and follow the instructions of the probation officer;
4. The defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities;
5. The defendant shall work regularly at a lawful occupation, unless excused by the probation officer for schooling, training, or other acceptable
reasons;
6. The defendant shall notify the probation officer at least ten (10) days prior to any change in residence or employment;
7. The defendant shall refrain from the excessive use of alcohol and shall not purchase, possess, use, distribute, or administer any controlled
substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by a physician;
8. The defendant shall not frequent places where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;
9. The defendant shall not associate with any persons engaged in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony,
unless granted permission to do so by the probation officer;
I 0. The defendant shall permit a probation officer to visit him or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit confiscation of any
contraband observed in plain view by the probation officer;
II. The defendant shall notify the probation officer within seventy-two (72) hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement officer;
12. The defendant shall not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a special agent of a law enforcement agency without the permission
of the court; and
13. As directed by the probation officer, the defendant shall notify third parties of risks that may be occasioned by the defendant's criminal record
or personal history or characteristics and shall permit the probation officer to make such notifications and to confirm the defendant's
compliance with such notification requirement.
USDC FLSD 2456 (Rev. 09/08)- Judgment in a Criminal Case Page 4 of 6
SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION
The defendant shall also comply with the following additional conditions of supervised release:
Employment Requirement- The defendant shall maintain full-time, legitimate employment and not be unemployed for a term
of more than 30 days unless excused for schooling, training or other acceptable reasons. Further, the defendant shall provide
documentation including, but not limited to pay stubs, contractual agreements, W-2 Wage and Earnings Statements, and other
documentation requested by the U.S. Probation Officer.
Permissible Search- The defendant shall submit to a search of his person or property conducted in a reasonable manner and at
a reasonable time by the U.S. Probation Officer.
Relinquishment of License- Upon request of the Florida Department of Financial Services, the defendant shall relinquish his
check cashing license to said agency. The defendant is on notice that such relinquishment is permanent and will be considered
disciplinary action.
USDC FLSD 2458 (Rev 09/08)- Judgment in a Criminal Case Page 5 of 6
CRIMINAL MONETARY PENAL TIES
The defendant must pay the total criminal monetary penalties under the schedule of payments on the Schedule of
Payments sheet.
Total Assessment Total Fine Total Restitution
$300.00
*Findings for the total amount of losses are required under Chapters I 09A, II 0, II OA, and 113A of Title 18, United States Code, for offenses committed on
or after September 13. 1994, but before April 23. 1996.
USDC FLSD 245B (Rev 09/08)- Judgment in a Criminal Case Page 6 of 6
CASE NUMBER: 1 :09-20732-CR-GRAHAM-1
SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS
Having assessed the defendant's ability to pay, payment of the total criminal monetary penalties are due as follows:
A. Lump sum payment of$300.00 due immediately, balance due
Unless the court has expressly ordered otherwise, if this judgment imposes imprisonment, payment of criminal monetary penalties
is due during imprisonment. All criminal monetary penalties, except those payments made through the Federal Bureau of Prisons'
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program, are made to the clerk of the court.
The defendant shall receive credit for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed.
The assessment is payable immediately to the CLERK, UNITED STATES COURTS and is to be addressed to:
U.S. CLERK'S OFFICE
ATTN: FINANCIAL SECTION
400 NORTH MIAMI A VENUE, ROOM 8N09
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128-7716
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons, U.S. Probation Office and the U.S. Attorney's Office are responsible for the enforcement of
this order.
Forfeiture of the defendant's right, title and interest in certain property is hereby ordered consistent with the plea
agreement of forfeiture. The United States shall submit a proposed order of forfeiture within three days of this proceeding.
Payments shall be applied in the following order: ( 1) assessment, (2) restitution principal, (3) restitution interest, ( 4) fine principal,
(5) fine interest, (6) community restitution,(?) penalties, and (8) costs, including cost of prosecution and court costs.
KEM:or UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CASE NO 09-20732-CR-GRAHAM

Plaintiff,
vs.
MUNTHER DUAYBES,
Defendant.

__________________________________/
FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE
Upon motion of the United States for entry of a final order of forfeiture pursuant to Title 21,
United States Code, Section 853(n) and Rule 32.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon
review of the record in this matter, and for good cause shown thereby, the Court hereby finds that:
1. On October 16, 2009, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture [DE #16]
in favor of the United States and ordered that the defendants interest in:
$3,987.00 in United States currency
be forfeited to the United States.
2. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(1), notice of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture
was posted on an official government internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) for at least thirty (30)
consecutive days, beginning on November 20, 2009, and ending on December 19, 2009. The
published notice states the intent of the United States to forfeit all right, title and interest in, and to
dispose of, the property identified in said Preliminary Order of Forfeiture; advised all third parties,
if any, of their right to petition the Court within thirty days for a hearing to adjudicate the validity
of their alleged legal interest in the property; and set forth the requirement that anyone seeking to
2
claim an interest in the property to be forfeited must file a petition in conformance with Title 21,
United States Code, Section 853(n)(3), within thirty days after the earlier of the final date of
publication of the notice or the receipt of actual notice.
3 The Declaration of Publication was filed with the Court on December 29, 2009, [DE
#22].
4. No third party has filed a timely petition for an ancillary hearing and the Court is not
aware of any party having any interest in the property ordered forfeited by the Preliminary Order
of forfeiture identified herein above.
Accordingly, pursuant to Title 21, United States Code, Section 853(n) and for good cause
shown it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJ UDGED, and DECREED that all right, title, claim and interest in
is hereby forfeited to, and clear title vested in, the United States of America.
The United States Internal Revenue Service, or any duly authorized law enforcement official, shall
dispose of the above mentioned property in accordance with law.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida on this ,
2010.

DONALD L. GRAHAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE
cc: AUSA Karen E. Moore (2 certified copies)
KEM:or UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff,

vs.
MUNTHER DUAYBES,

Defendant.
_____________________________________/
UNITED STATES MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
FINAL ORDER OF FORFEITURE
The United States of America hereby moves for the entry of a final order of forfeiture in
this action and in support thereof submits the following:
1. On October 16, 2009, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture [DE#16]
in favor of the United States and ordered that the defendants interest in: :
be forfeited to the United States.
2. In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(1), and the Attorney Generals authority to
determine the manner of publication in a criminal case, notice of the Preliminary Order of Forfeiture
was posted on an official government internet site (www.forfeiture.gov) for at least thirty (30)
consecutive days, beginning on November 20, 2009 and ending on December 19, 2009. The
published notice stated the intent of the United States to forfeit all right title and interest in, and to
dispose of, the property identified in said Preliminary Order of Forfeiture; advised all third parties,
if any, of their right to petition the Court withing thirty days for a hearing to adjudicate the validity
2
of their alleged legal interest in the property; and set forth the requirements that anyone seeking to
claim an interest in the property to be forfeited must file a petition in conformance with 21 U.S.C.
853(n)(3), within thirty days after the earlier of the final date of publication of the notice or the
receipt of actual notice.
3. The Declaration of Publication was filed with the Court on December 29, 2009, [D.E.
#22].
4. Under the provisions of 21 U.S.C. 853(n)(2), a person claiming an interest in the
property at issue must file a petition with the Court within thirty days of publication of notice or of
receipt of actual notice, which ever is earlier.
5. Thirty (30) days from the date of publication have elapsed and no claims have been filed
with this Court.
6. The defendant was sentenced on December 2, 2009, and the forfeiture made a part
of his J udgement.
3
WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter a Final Order
of Forfeiture which confirms that all right, title and interest in:
is hereby transferred to and vested in the United States pursuant to Title 21, United States Code,
Section 853(n).

J EFFREY H. SLOMAN
By: s/Karen E. Moore
KAREN E. MOORE
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
COURT NO. A5500043
99 N.E. 4
TH
STREET
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33132
TEL: (305) 961-9030
FAX: (305) 536-7599
Karen.moore@usdoj.gov
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 8 , 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing
document, U.S. Motion for Entry of Final Order, with the Clerk of the Court using CMECF.
By: s/ Karen E. Moore
KAREN E. MOORE
ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:09-CR-20732-DLG-1


Plaintiff,

v.

MUNTHER DUAYBES,

Defendant. /

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRAVEL

THIS CAUSE having come on before this Court upon the Defendants Unopposed
Motion To Travel regarding travel to Husa, J ordan for a period of time not to exceed thirty (30)
days, and the Court having considered same, and being otherwise duly advised in the premises
thereof, it is hereby,
ORDERED AND ADJ UDGED that Defendants Unopposed Motion To Travel be and
the same is hereby:
______________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________.
DONE AND ORDERED at Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida this _____ day of
_____________ 2012.

___________________________________
Donald L. Graham
J udge, United States District Court

Copies furnished:
All Parties of Record
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIAMI DIVISION

CASE NO.: 1:09-CR-20732-DLG-1


Plaintiff,

v.

MUNTHER DUAYBES,

Defendant. /

DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION TO TRAVEL

COMES NOW the Defendant, MUNTHER DUAYBES, by and through undersigned
counsel, and respectfully moves for the entry of an Order by this Honorable Court granting the
Defendant permission to travel to the town of Husa, North J ordan, a suburb of Irbid, and as
grounds therefore would state the following:
1. That the Defendant desires to visit his mother, Zuha Ammari, who suffers from diabetes
and is seventy years old.
2. That his mother resides in the town of Husa, J ordan, telephone number 011-962-2-
7010347, and the Defendant wishes to leave on J uly 12, 2012 and return to the Southern
District of Florida on August 12, 2012.
3. That the Defendant intends to purchase tickets if and when this Motion is granted and, if
granted, will provide airline itinerary to his Supervised Release Officer, Bonita Holmes.
4. That undersigned counsel has contacted Supervised Release Officer Bonita Holmes and
she has stated that she has no objections to the granting of this Motion with the provision
that the unsupervised period of time be no longer than thirty (30) days.
2

5. That undersigned counsel has contacted Rosa Rodriguez-Mera, Assistant United States
Attorney, and she concurs with Supervised Release Officer Holmes.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays this Honorable Court enter its Order granting the
Defendant permission to travel to Husa, J ordan for a period of time not to exceed thirty (30)
days.
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the
Court utilizing CM/ECF and copies were electronically furnished all parties of records this 1
st

day of May 2012.

VOLUCK & MERLINO, P.A.
101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1430
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Telephone: 954-467-8989
Facsimile: 954-745-7698
E-Mail: acquit00@bellsouth.net

/s/ J effrey M. Voluck .
J effrey M. Voluck
Florida Bar No.: 0113750

Duaybes Munther

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duaybes Munther

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Duaybes Munther

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 of 8

AUG 26, 2009

You might also like