100% found this document useful (1 vote)
10K views15 pagesChris Correa Plea Agreement
The plea agreement for former Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa in the hack of the Astros database.
Uploaded by
Houston ChronicleCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
100% found this document useful (1 vote)
10K views15 pagesChris Correa Plea Agreement
The plea agreement for former Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa in the hack of the Astros database.
Uploaded by
Houston ChronicleCopyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ae eee tle 617
‘
CHRISTOPHER CORREA,
Defendant.
PLEA AGREEMENT
‘The United States of America, by and through Kenneth Magidson, United States Attorney
for the Southern District of Texas, and Michael Chu, Assistant U.S Attorney, and the defendant,
Christopher Correa (“Defendant”), and Defendant's counsel, pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(A) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, state that they have entered into an agreement, the terms and
conditions of which are as follows:
Defendant's Agreement
1, Defendant agrees to plead guilty to Counts I to 5 of the Information, which charge
defendant with Unauthorized Access of a Protected Computer, in violation of Title 18, United
States Code, Sections 1030(a)(2)(C) & (c)(2\(B)(ii). Defendant, by entering this plea, agrees that
he is waiving any right to have the facts that the law makes essential to the punishment either
charged in the Information, or proven to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.
Punishment Range
2. The statutory maximum penalty for violating Title 18, United States Code, Section
1030(a)(2)(C) & (c)(2)(B)(iii) is imprisonment of not more than 5 years and a fine of not more than $250,000. The Parties agree to recommend that Counts | to 5 be served concurrently, not
consecutively, with each other.
3. Ad
nally, Defendant may receive a term of supervised release after
imprisonment of up to 3 years. See Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3559(a)(3) and
3583(b)(2). Defendant acknowledges and understands that if he should violate the conditions of
any period of supervised release which may be imposed as part of his sentence, then Defendant
may be imprisoned for the entire term of supervised release,
out credit for time already served
‘on the term of supervised release prior to such violation. See Title 18, United States Code,
Sections 3559(a)(3) and 3583(e)(3). Defendant understands that he cannot have the imposition or
execution of the sentence suspended, nor is he eligible for parole.
Mandatory Special Assessment
4. Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3013(a)(2)(A), immediately after
sentencing, Defendant will pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court a special
assessment in the amount of one hundred dollars ($100.00) per count of conviction. The payment
will be by cashier's check or money order, payable to the Clerk of the United States District Court,
clo
istrict Clerk's Office, P.O. Box 61010, Houston, Texas 77208, Attention: Finance.
Immigration Consequences
5. Defendant recognizes that pleading guilty may have consequences with respect to
his immigration status if he is not a citizen of the United States. Defendant understands that if he
is not a citizen of the United States, by pleading guilty he may be removed from the United States,
denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United States
the future. Defendant's attomey
has advised Defendant of the potential immigration consequences resulting from Defendant's plea
of guilty. Waiver of Appeal and Collateral Review
6. Defendant is aware that Title 28, United States Code, Section 1291, and Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3742, afford a defendant the right to appeal the conviction and
sentence imposed. Defendant is also aware that Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, affords
the right to contest or “collaterally attack” a conviction or sentence after the judgment of
conviction and sentence has become final. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right
to appeal or “collaterally attack” the conviction and sentence, except that Defendant does not
waive the right to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, if otherwise
permitted, or on collateral review in a motion under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255.
In the event Defendant files a notice of appeal following the imposition of the sentence or later
collaterally attacks his conviction or sentence, the United States may choose to assert its rights
under this agreement and seek specific performance of these waivers.
7. Imagreeing to these waivers, Defendant is aware that a sentence has not yet been
determined by the Court. Defendant is also aware that any estimate of the possible sentencing
range under the sentencing guidelines that he may have received from his counsel, the United
States or the Probation Office, is a prediction and not a promise, did not induce his guilty plea, and
is not binding on the United States, the Probation Office or the Court. ‘The United States does not
make any promise or representation concerning what sentence the defendant will receive.
Defendant further understands and agrees that the United States Sentencing Guidelines are
“effectively advisory” to the Court. See United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
Accordingly, Defendant understands that, although the Court must consult the Sentencing
Guidelines and must take them into account when sentencing Defendant, the Court is not bound to
follow the Sentencing Guidelines nor sentence Defendant within the calculated guideline range.
3 8
Agreement
agreement.
10.
offenses ari
Defendant understands and agrees that each and all waivers contained in the
‘are made in exchange for the concessions made by the United States in t!
The United States’ Agreements
The United States agrees to each of the following:
At the time of sentencing, the United States agrees not to oppose Defendant's
anticipated request to the Court and the United States Probation Office that he
receive a two (2) level downward adjustment pursuant to section 3E1.1(a) of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines, should Defendant accept
responsibility as contemplated by the Sentencing Guidelines: and
If Defendant qualifies for an adjustment under section 3E1.1(a) of the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, the United States agrees not to oppose
Defendant's request for an additional one-level departure based on the
timeliness of the plea or the expeditious manner in which Defendant provided
complete information regarding his role in the offense (if Defendants offense
level is 16 or greater).
‘The Parties agree that the intended loss in this case is $1.7 million, which would
result in a 16 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(6)(1)(I).
The Parties also agree that at nearly all times, defendant intentionally used
sophisticated means to mask his identity, his location, and the type of device he
used, which would result in a 2 level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1(b)(10)(C).
plea
‘The United States agrees that it will not further criminally prosecute Defendant for
ising from conduct charged in the Information.
Continued on Next Page United States' Non-Waiver of Appeal
11, The United States reserves the right to carry out
responsibilities under gui
sentencing. Specifically, the United States reserves the right:
to bring its version of the facts of this case, including its evidence file and any
re files, to the attention of the Probation Office in connection with
that office's preparation of a presentence report;
b. to set forth or dispute sentencing factors or facts material to sentencing;
c. to seek resolution of such factors or facts in conference with Defendant's
counsel and the Probation Office;
4. to file a pleading relating to these issues, in accordance with section 6A 1.2 of
the United States Sentencing Guidelines and Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3553(a); and
€. to appeal the sentence imposed or the manner in which it was determined,
Sentence Determination
12. Defendant is aware that the sentence will be imposed after consideration of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines and Policy Statements, which are only advisory, as well as
the provisions of Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a). Defendant nonetheless
acknowledges and agrees that the Court has authority to impose any sentence up to and including
the statutory maximum set for the offense(s) to which Defendant pleads guilty, and that the
sentence to be imposed is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge after the Court has
consulted the applicable Sentencing Guidelines. Defendant understands and agrees that the
parties’ positions regarding the application of the Sentencing Guidelines do not bind the Court and
that the sentence imposed is within the discretion of the sentencing judge. If the Court should
impose any sentence up to the maximum established by statute, or should the Court order any or all of the sentences imposed to run consecutively, Defendant cannot, for that reason alone, withdraw a
guilty plea, and will remain bound to fulfill all of the obligations under this plea agreement.
Rights at Trial
13, Defendant understands that by entering into this agreement, he surrenders certain,
rights as provided in this plea agreement. Defendant understands that the rights of a defendant
\clude the following:
a If Defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty to the charges, defendant would
have the right to a speedy jury trial with the assistance of counsel. ‘The trial
may be conducted by a judge sitting without a jury if Defendant, the United
States, and the Court all agree.
b. Ata trial, the United States would be required to present witnesses and other
evidence against Defendant. Defendant would have the opportunity to
confront those witnesses and his attomey would be allowed to cross-examine
them. In turn, Defendant could, but would not be required to, present
witnesses and other evidence on his own behalf. If the witnesses for
Defendant would not appear voluntarily, he could require their attendance
through the subpoena power of the court; and
¢. Ata trial, Defendant could rely on a privilege against self-incrimination and
decline to testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn from such refusal to
testify. However, if Defendant desired to do so, he could testify on his own
behalf.
Factual Basis for Guilty Plea
14, Defendant is pleading guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charges contained in
Counts | to 5 of the Information. If this case were to proceed to trial, the United States could
prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
15. The parties further agree that the United States could prove the following facts,
among others, to establish Defendant's guilt beyond any reasonable doubt: Background
(1) The Houston Astros and the St. Louis Cardinals were Major League Baseball
teams. The Astros’ operations were primarily based
in the Souther District of Texas.
(2) The Astros and the Cardinals, like other teams, measured and analyzed in-game
activities to look for advantages that may not have been apparent to their competitors.
(3) Defendant Christopher Correa was, from 2009 to July 2015, employed by the St.
Louis Cardinals. In 2013, he became the Cardinals’ Director of Baseball Development, where he
provided analytical support to all areas of the Cardinals’ baseball operations.
(4) Until late 2011, Vietims A and B were both employed by the St. Louis Cardi
After that, they joined the Astros.
(5) The Astros operated an e-mail system for their employees. The Astros also
operated a private online database called Ground Control. Both systems were maintained on
computers located within the Southern District of Texas that were used in (and affected)
interstate commerce and communication. The Astros used Ground Control to house a wide
variety of confidential data, including scouting reports, statistics, and contract information, all to
improve the team’s scouting, communication, and decision-making for every baseball-related
decision. Victims A and B, as well as other Astros employees, were assigned password-protected
accounts by which they could access Ground Control and their Astros e-mail.
6 From no later than March 2013 to through at least March 2014, defendant
Christopher Correa accessed the computers of the Houston Astros without authorization. In
particular, he accessed Victim A’s e-mail account and the Ground Control accounts of Vietim A,
Victim B, and other Astros employees. (7) Correa illegally accessed the Astros’ computers in the following way: In
December 2011, as Victim A prepared to leave the St. Louis Cardinals and join the Houston
Astros, he was directed to turn over his Cardinals-owned laptop to Correa ~ along with the
laptop’s password. When Victim A joined the Astros, he re-used a similar (albeit obscure)
password for his Astros’ e-mail and Ground Control accounts. No later than March 2013, Correa
beyan accessing Vietim A’s Ground Control and Astros’ e-mail accounts using a variation of the
password to Victim A’s Cardinals laptop. What follows is a selection of the instances in which
Correa accessed the Astros’ computers without authorization.
Correa’s intrusions into Ground Control started no later than March 24, 2013
(8) On March 24, 2013, Correa accessed Victim A’s Ground Control account for
about an hour and 43 minutes. There, he accessed an Excel file of the Astros’ scouting list of
every player eligible for that year’s draft, and how each Astros scout ranked them. He also
viewed, among other things, the following confidential information:
+ Scouting weekly digest page, which listed stats and notes on recent performance
and injuries for top prospects whom the Astros were considering drafting, as well
as a regional scout’s evaluations of his prospects’ estimated peak rise, and the
bonus he proposed be offered;
+ Scouting crosscheck page, which listed prospects seen by cross-checkers (higher
level scouts — as players are more likely to be drafted, more scouting resources are
devoted to evaluating them) and scouting page;
+ Astros main draft page, as well as subsets of players such as college hitters, high
school pitchers, etc. whom the Astros were considering drafting, ranked by
analytics, and the bonus proposed to be offered.
Correa intruded into Victim A’s Ground Control during the June 6-8, 2013 Amateur Draft
(9) OnJune 8, 2013, Correa accessed Vietim A’s Ground Control account and
information on players who had not yet been drafted; draft pages for Player A, whom the Astros
