Mark Hazelwood
Former Pilot Travel Centers President Mark Hazelwood, national sales director Scott Wombold and inside account representative Heather Jones will be the first sentenced out of 17 defendants, Judge Curtis Collier has ruled.
They were each convicted of at least one count in an earlier trial in Chattanooga. Karen Mann was found not guilty.
Their sentencing will be Aug. 22.
Pilot is headquartered in Knoxville, but the case was transferred to Judge Curtis Collier in Chattanooga. Each of the sentencings will be at 2 p.m. at the Federal Courthouse on Georgia Avenue.
Here is the remaining sentencing schedule:
Sept. 5 - Brian Mosher, John Freeman and Vicki Borden
Oct. 3 - Arnie Ralenkotter, Jay Stinnett and John Spiewak
Nov. 7 - Kevin Clark, Michael Scott Fenwick, Chris Andrews and Katy Bibee
Dec. 19 - Ashley Judd, Holly Radford, Janet Welch and Lexie Holden
Hazelwood is under house arrest at his Knoxville home. Other defendants are free on bond.
Those who were convicted at trial are expected to be facing the longest sentences. All but four of the 18 employees charged chose to plead guilty and to cooperate with the government. A number of those charged took the witness stand in the recent trial.
Judge Collier said, "Scheduling sentencing hearings on the same day does not mean the Court considers those Defendants are linked together in a group as to culpability or sentencing; the Court has sought to maximize the pace at which Defendants are sentenced without scheduling too many Defendants for sentencing on any given day."
The judge also wrote, "The Court is faced with the responsibility of conducting sentencing hearings and imposing judgments on these seventeen individual Defendants. Although their convictions and cases arise out of a common investigation, some common facts, and the same or similar statutory violations, each Defendant has a separate background, history, and involvement in the criminal violations.
"For these reasons, their sentencing hearings will involve different Sentencing Guideline considerations and calculations, different aggravating and mitigating factors, and different personal characteristics. The Court anticipates there could be extensive argument regarding sentencing issues for each Defendant. The Court also anticipates it might have to hear testimony from witnesses to resolve some of these issues. For these reasons, the Court did not consider it practical to hold one sentencing hearing for all seventeen Defendants.
"To allow the Defendants and the United States (the “Government”) to state and fully present their sentencing arguments, it was obvious the Court would have to arrive at a reasonable method for dividing the Defendants into groups so that those Defendants most closely situated to each other would have their sentencing hearings at or as close to the same time as possible. To assist the Court in determining the most reasonable schedule for the sentencing hearings, the Court invited the Government to share with the Court and the individual Defendants its views on an orderly and efficient schedule. (Doc. 498 in Case No. 3-16-cr-20.) The Court indicated the Government should do so by informing the Court of the Government’s opinion of the relative culpability of the Defendants. The Government submitted its thoughts to the Court and suggested that each Defendant’s position in the corporate structure of Pilot Flying J would be a reasonable method to group Defendants. (Doc. 499 in Case No. 3-16-cr-20.) The Government further suggested the three Defendants convicted at trial should be the first Defendants sentenced. The Court also considered the responsive filings of various Defendants. (See Docs. 500 & 504–06 in Case No. 3-16-cr-20; Doc. 36 in Case No. 3:13-cr-63; and Doc. 39 in Case No. 3:13-cr-68.) These filings included objections to the Government’s proposals, suggestions regarding the relative culpability of the various Defendants, suggestions regarding the order and manner in which sentencing hearings should be held, and various counsel’s scheduling conflicts.
"The Court emphasizes that no Defendant’s sentence will be predetermined on any basis whatsoever, including without limitation the Government’s proposed culpability or sentencing hearing groups, the order in which the Defendants are scheduled or sentenced, the other Defendants being sentenced on the same day, or any other information the Court has considered in setting a schedule. The Court will conduct every sentencing in each of these matters in accordance with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 and Title 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The Court adopts the Government’s suggestion that hearings be conducted first for the Defendants convicted at trial. This will promote efficient and just sentencing if the Government offers testimony from a cooperating Defendant about Guideline provisions for one or more of these Defendants and an additional departure motion under USSG § 5K1.1 becomes appropriate.
"For the remaining Defendants, the Court will proceed according to the schedule at the conclusion of this Order. The Court has considered the Government’s suggested culpability and sentencing categories, the responses from the Defendants, and information available to the Court in plea agreements and otherwise. The Court has concluded that the schedule below, rather than the schedule proposed by the Government, will best facilitate the orderly and just sentencing of the Defendants who have pleaded guilty in these cases. In setting this schedule, the Court has considered factors such as potential loss amounts, numbers of victims, length of participation in the conspiracy, and roles in the conspiracy. The Court has also considered the number of hearings that can effectively be held on any given day. It goes without saying that the Court will have to handle other sentencing hearings, guilty-plea hearings, and other matters during the time period. As is the Court’s typical practice for sentencing hearings arising out of related criminal conduct, the Court will conduct sentencing hearings set for the same day jointly."
Scott Wombold