• MRP/SAB: USAO 2004R00900

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

*******INDICTMENTCOUNTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN

(Wire Fraud) The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland charges that:

I. Introduction Prince George’s County Public Schools

1. At all times material to this Indictment:

a.
rince George’s County Public Schools (“PGCPS”) was the public school system in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Oversight of PGCPS was the responsibility of the Prince George’s County Board of Education (“the Board”). The Board was charged with carrying out state law and policies of the State Board of Education; maintaining a reasonably uniform system of public schools designed to provide quality education and equal educational opportunity for all children; determining the educational policies of PGCPS; and adopting rules and regulations for the conduct and management of PGCPS, among other things. The Board membership included a Chair and Vice Chair of the Board.

b.
Responsibility for the overall administration of PGCPS was entrusted to the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), who reported to the Board. From June 2003 through June 2005, PGCPS employed defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY as CEO and Secretary and Treasurer of the Board. His annual salary was approximately $250,000. As CEO and Secretary and Treasurer of the Board, defendant HORNSBY owed the Board and Prince George’s County a duty to provide his honest services, including his independent judgment, free from self-dealing, kickbacks, and undisclosed conflicts of interest.

The Ethics Panel

2. At all times material to this Indictment:
a. PGCPS personnel generally were prohibited from engaging in conduct that would result in a conflict of interest. Specifically, Board Policy No. 0109 prohibited PGCPS officials from, among other things, (i) participating on behalf of PGCPS in any matter that would, to their knowledge, have a direct financial impact on them, their spouse, domestic partner, or a business entity with which they were affiliated; (ii) being employed by a business entity that had or was negotiating a contract worth more than $1,000 with the school system; (iii) holding any outside employment relationship that would impair their impartiality or independence of judgment;

(iv)
soliciting or accepting any gift worth more than $25 from any person who had or was negotiating a contract with PGCPS, except as determined by the Ethics Panel; and (v) using confidential information acquired in their official position for their own benefit or that of another.

b.
Potential ethical violations by PGCPS personnel were reviewed by an Ethics Panel. The members of the Ethics Panel were appointed by the Board and were not otherwise affiliated with PGCPS. The Ethics Panel was charged with interpreting the Board’s ethics policies,

-2-
providing advice on implementing these policies, and reviewing alleged ethics violations. The Ethics Panel reported findings and recommended possible action to the Board.

Federal and State Funding
3. At all times material to this Indictment:

a.
PGCPS received funding directly and indirectly from various federal programs. Federal aid included funds administered by the United States Department of Education pursuant to Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (“Title I”). The Title I program provided federal financial assistance to state educational agencies for public schools with high numbers of children from families with modest income. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2004, PGCPS received more than $18 million in Title I funds for approximately 70 eligible schools.

b.
PGCPS also received funding from state and county sources. State aid included funds administered by the Maryland State Department of Education (“MSDE”) pursuant to the School Accountability Funding for Excellence (“SAFE”) program. This grant supplied PGCPS with approximately $40 million for the two-year period between July 2002 and June 2004. The total budget was allocated among a dozen categories of expenditures, including approximately $5.5 million in Dedicated State Compensatory Education (“SCE”) Funding. SCE funding was designed to improve the performance of students at risk for academic failure. The bulk of SCE funds – more than $4 million – initially was budgeted for salaries, wages and benefits for teachers of such at-risk students. PGCPS secured an extension of the SCE portion of the grant until on or about October 29, 2004.

PGCPS Email System
4. At all times material to this Indictment, PGCPS operated an internal email system used by its employees. Email that had been sent or received by PGCPS personnel was stored on various servers, including one server that maintained the email of administrative personnel, including defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY. PGCPS information technology personnel routinely copied email from the servers to back-up tapes. At the beginning of defendant HORNSBY’s tenure, these back-up tapes were maintained indefinitely.

II. The E-Rate ContractsThe E-Rate Program
5. The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 established a program administered indirectly by the Federal Communications Commission to provide affordable telecommunications services to eligible schools and libraries. Commonly known as “E-Rate,” the program provided schools and libraries with substantial discounts on telecommunications services, internet access and internal connections. Eligible schools could apply for these discounts, which were based on the number of students eligible for federal lunch subsidies. The application process involved the preparation and submission of various forms.

E-Rate Consulting Companies

1. Quality Schools Consulting, Inc. (“QSCi”) was a corporation organized in New York, which was owned and operated by defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY. QSCi provided consulting services to school systems, including assistance in preparing applications to secure E-Rate funds. In providing these services, defendant HORNSBY was assisted by an individual who had worked for him in other school districts (“the Former Employee”).
2. Erate Managers, LLC (“Erate Managers”) purported to be a company organized and located in Texas that was operated by the Former Employee. Erate Managers was engaged to assist PGCPS in securing E-Rate funds.
3. Company A was a corporation organized in Delaware with its principal place of business in Maryland. Company A was a certified minority business that assisted school systems in securing E-Rate funds.

E-Rate Consulting Contracts – QSCi

1. In or about the fall of 2003, after defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY began his tenure with PGCPS, he and the Former Employee solicited other school systems for E-Rate consulting business for QSCi. To that end, in or about November 2003, defendant HORNSBY and the Former Employee submitted proposals to other school systems, including North Forest Independent School District (“NFISD”) in Houston, Texas. The proposal provided that QSCi would assist NFISD in preparing its applications for E-Rate funding. In or about December 2003, NFISD awarded QSCi an initial contract to assist with its E-Rate applications. Pursuant to this contract, in or about February 2004, NFISD issued a check for $9,950 to QSCi. At least one QSCi invoice for this E-Rate consulting work referred to the company as “Quality Schools Consulting Erate Managers.”
QSCi sought and secured a second E-Rate consulting contract with NFISD in or about March 2004. In or about June 2004, NFISD issued a check for $9,200 to QSCi pursuant to the second contract. At about the same time, defendant HORNSBY expressed to the Former Employee an interest in securing additional E-Rate consulting contracts with other school systems.

E-Rate Consulting Contracts – Erate Managers

1. While NFISD was seeking assistance with its E-Rate applications, PGCPS also was seeking assistance with its E-Rate applications. To that end, defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY directed PGCPS personnel to obtain proposals from outside E-Rate consulting companies by issuing a request for proposal (“RFP”). An RFP was a formal document published to solicit proposals from outside companies to contract with the school system. The Former Employee provided defendant HORNSBY with a draft RFP for E-Rate consulting services.
2. Defendant HORNSBY then provided that draft RFP to personnel in the PGCPS purchasing department. Using that draft RFP, the purchasing department generated RFP No. 40-04, entitled “Consulting Services for E-Rate Projects for the Board of Education of Prince George’s County” (“RFP 40-04”). RFP 40-04 sought proposals from qualified consulting companies to provide the school system with assistance in applying for E-Rate funds. PGCPS published RFP 40-04 for a two-week period beginning in October 2003. The mandatory deadline for the return of bids was 2 p.m. on November 3, 2003.
3. Before the deadline expired, PGCPS received bids from five outside consulting companies, including Company A. Erate Managers did not submit a bid before the deadline. PGCPS information technology personnel evaluated each proposal based on various factors, including each company’s experience and location. For each factor, the staff rated each proposal with a score between one and five. The reviewing staff provided the highest overall score to Company A’s proposal.
4. Based upon this review, on or about November 20, 2003, PGCPS information technology personnel submitted a memorandum to the PGCPS purchasing department recommending that PGCPS award the contract to Company A. After each of these factors was assigned a certain weight, and price also was considered, Company A’s proposal of $59,675 again was rated with the highest score. When provided with the recommendation to award the contract to Company A, defendant HORNSBY directed PGCPS personnel not to award the contract to Company A, and made clear that a proposal from the Former Employee would be forthcoming.
5. On or about December 8, 2003, after the deadline for submitting proposals had expired, the Former Employee emailed PGCPS information technology personnel a proposal to provide E-Rate consulting services to PGCPS, which was blind-copied to defendant HORNSBY. In the name of “Erate Managers D.B. Inc.,” a non-existent company, the initial proposal quoted a flat fee of $48,550.
6. After defendant HORNSBY privately complained about the price to the Former Employee, on or about December 14, 2003, the Former Employee submitted a revised proposal to PGCPS. In the name of “Erate Managers, LLC,” this second proposal increased the price substantially. In addition to charging a flat fee of $48,550, the second proposal added another fee of 1% of the E-Rate funds awarded (with a minimum fee of $25,000). Other PGCPS personnel negotiated with the Former Employee to reduce the amount of the additional percentage fee.

1. As a result of defendant HORNSBY’s intervention, on or about December 19, 2003, PGCPS issued a purchase order to Erate Managers for RFP No. 40-04. The contract required the school system to pay $48,550 plus a fee of 1% of the value of the E-Rate funds awarded in excess of $2 million. Pursuant to the contract for 2004, PGCPS owed Erate Managers approximately
2. $120,243, and paid Erate Managers more than $80,000.

Payment to Defendant HORNSBY
19. Defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY and the Former Employee discussed and agreed that defendant HORNSBY would receive half of the proceeds from the E-Rate contracts with PGCPS. Later, on or about December 20, 2004, defendant HORNSBY met with the Former Employee in a hotel room in Bowie, Maryland. In the hotel room, defendant HORNSBY confirmed his agreement to receive approximately half of the proceeds, and discussed specifics regarding the amount, projected to be more than $100,000. Defendant HORNSBY accepted $1,000 in cash from the Former Employee as a down payment.

III. The LeapFrog ContractLeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.

20. At all times material to this Indictment:

a. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. (“LeapFrog”) was a corporation organized in Delaware, with its corporate headquarters in California. LeapFrog developed and marketed technology-based educational products designed to assist students at levels from pre-kindergarten through high school. LeapFrog’s sales to public schools were primarily the responsibility of its SchoolHouse Division (“LFSH”), which sold curriculum programs for students in pre-kindergarten through eighth grade. One of LeapFrog’s products was the “LeapTrack” assessment and instruction system. Designed for students in kindergarten through fifth grade, the LeapTrack system used computers to enable teachers to assess each student’s performance and fashion individual instructional programs accordingly. Another LeapFrog product was the “Ready, Set, Leap!” program, which was a technology-based curriculum designed primarily for pre-kindergarten students.

b. LFSH employed a national sales force organized by geographic region. Each LFSH sales representative was responsible for an exclusive territory, and was compensated with salary, sales commissions, and an annual bonus. The amount of each sales commission was based in part on the amount of the sale. LFSH policy generally provided that sales commissions were to be paid to the representative assigned to the territory in which the sale was made.

1. The LFSH representative responsible for sales to customers in Virginia was Sienna Rochelle Owens, who was employed by LeapFrog from February through December 2004. In or about September 2004, Owens was promoted to the national position of Strategic Account Specialist. During his tenure as CEO of PGCPS, defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY and Owens were engaged in a long-term romantic relationship, and shared the same residence in Mitchellville, Maryland.
2. Another LFSH representative was responsible for sales to customers in Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia (“the Maryland sales representative”). The Maryland sales representative was employed by LeapFrog from May 2003 through December 2004.

Negotiation of the Contract

1. In or about May 2004, defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY directed that PGCPS establish a summer program for kindergarten students identified to be held back for the upcoming school year. Defendant HORNSBY suggested the use of LeapFrog products in the summer program. To that end, PGCPS personnel sought and secured from the Maryland sales representative proposals for using LeapFrog products for the summer program. After receiving proposals from the Maryland sales representative, PGCPS instructional technology personnel recommended using primarily LeapFrog’s “Ready, Set, Leap!” package for the summer program in approximately 33 kindergarten classrooms.
2. While the Maryland sales representative was preparing proposals for the summer program, defendant HORNSBY informed Sienna Owens that he wanted to purchase LeapFrog products for 216 kindergarten classrooms. To consummate the sale, between Friday, June 4, 2004, and Thursday, June 10, 2004, Owens dealt directly and exclusively with defendant HORNSBY, by providing him with draft proposals, soliciting his input, and making recommendations about the deal, among other things.
3. Defendant HORNSBY finalized the LeapFrog contract on or about Thursday, June 10, 2004. At about 4:25 p.m. that day, Owens requested by email that defendant HORNSBY call her LFSH supervisor and provided her supervisor’s telephone number. At about 4:55 p.m., defendant HORNSBY called Owens’ supervisor from his PGCPS office. During that call, defendant HORNSBY agreed that PGCPS would purchase LeapTrack products for 216 kindergarten classrooms at a cost of $956,280 (“the LeapFrog contract”). This transaction was one of the largest sales ever made by LFSH.
4. At defendant HORNSBY’s direction, PGCPS issued to LeapFrog purchase order number 333488 dated June 11, 2004 in the amount of $956,280. After receiving an invoice from LeapFrog, PGCPS issued and mailed to LeapFrog check number 249179, dated July 30, 2004, to pay for the $956,280 deal. PGCPS funded the purchase from both Title I and SCE sources. The SCE funds included more than $600,000 originally budgeted for teacher compensation.

Payments to Defendant HORNSBY and Owens

1. To personally benefit from the LeapFrog contract, Owens endeavored from the outset to secure a substantial percentage of the commission on the deal, which typically would benefit the Maryland representative. To that end, on or about the morning of June 4, 2004, Owens informed her LFSH supervisor that she wanted 70-75% of the projected commission of $40,689, or a $25,000 flat fee. Owens later agreed to receive half of the gross commission.
2. To ensure that she received the commission, on or about June 11, 2004, Owens prepared a written agreement that required the Maryland sales representative to pay Owens half of the commission before taxes (“the commission-share agreement”). Owens used a Compaq Presario computer and software registered to defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY to prepare the commission-share agreement. Later that day, Owens met with the Maryland sales representative at a restaurant in Largo, Maryland. Owens provided the commission-share agreement to the Maryland sales representative and demanded payment of more than $20,000. The Maryland sales representative agreed to pay Owens $20,000 by money order.
3. The Maryland sales representative received the sales commission from the LeapFrog contract on or about July 14, 2004. Pursuant to Owens’ instruction, on or about July 29, 2004, the Maryland sales representative purchased a cashier’s check in the amount of $20,000. The Maryland sales representative mailed the cashier’s check to Owens, who received the check on or about August 4, 2004. The next day, Owens unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate the check by depositing $10,000 into her bank account and receiving the remaining $10,000 in cash. Unable to procure $10,000 in cash immediately because of bank policy, Owens deposited the entire $20,000 into her bank account. On or about August 13 and 24, 2004, Owens secured $10,000 in cash by making two withdrawals of $5,000 each. Owens provided the $10,000 in cash to defendant HORNSBY in exchange for his assistance in securing the LeapFrog contract.

IV. The InvestigationsThe Board’s Ethics Panel Investigation

1. On or about October 14, 2004, the Baltimore Sun published a newspaper article bearing the headline “Sales rep’s ties to school CEO raise issues in software deal.” The article described the LeapFrog contract and the relationship between defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY and Owens.
2. Following the publication of this and other reports regarding the LeapFrog contract, in or about October 2004, the Board Chair directed the Ethics Panel to determine whether a conflict of interest existed with respect to the LeapFrog contract. Specifically, the Board Chair instructed the Ethics Panel by letter to determine whether a conflict of interest resulted from “the CEO’s personal relationship with a company saleswoman, who did not do business with the Prince George’s County Public Schools and did not handle the purchase from LeapFrog.” After conducting an investigation based on this false premise concerning the role (or lack thereof) of Owens in the LeapFrog contract, the Ethics Panel found that there appeared to be no conflict of interest.

The Federal Criminal Investigation

1. In or about October 2004, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) initiated a criminal investigation of defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY regarding PGCPS contracts with LeapFrog and Erate Managers, among other matters. On or about November 5, 2004, the Baltimore Sun reported that the FBI had opened an investigation of defendant HORNSBY. That same day, defendant HORNSBY read the article reporting the initiation of a federal criminal investigation of his activities.
2. In or about December 2004, a federal Grand Jury in the District of Maryland initiated an investigation relating to the same matters. A federal Grand Jury investigation has been pending continuously until the date of this Indictment. By on or about February 7, 2005, defendant HORNSBY was aware that the federal Grand Jury issued a subpoena to PGCPS requiring the production of certain documents.

The Board’s Forensic Investigation

1. In light of the reports about the LeapFrog contract, by December 2004, PGCPS’ outside auditor had refused to certify the school system’s annual financial statements. The Board also had received information from LeapFrog that Owens received a share of the commission on the deal. As a result of these developments, on or about January 6, 2005, the Board engaged a forensic accounting firm, Huron Consulting Group (“Huron”), to determine the facts surrounding certain PGCPS contracts, including the LeapFrog and E-Rate contracts.
1. In or about May 2005, defendant HORNSBY agreed to be interviewed by Huron auditors in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. Prior to the interview, defendant HORNSBY was informed that the interview would relate to the LeapFrog and E-Rate contracts. Defendant HORNSBY,
2. through his lawyer who was present during the interview, stated that he was prepared to fully answer the questions. During the interview, defendant HORNSBY made various false representations about the LeapFrog and E-Rate contracts.
1. On or about June 3, 2005, Huron issued a report to the Board regarding defendant HORNSBY’s role in the LeapFrog and E-Rate contracts and related matters (“the Huron report”). Two days later, on or about June 5, 2005, defendant HORNSBY issued a written response to the Huron report through his lawyers, which made additional false representations about these contracts.
2. V. The Scheme to Defraud
2. Beginning in or about November 2003, and continuing until in or about June 2005, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant

ANDRE J. HORNSBY devised and intended to devise, and participated in, a scheme and artifice to defraud the Board of Education and Prince George’s County by depriving them of their intangible right to his honest services (“the scheme to defraud”).

Object of the Scheme to Defraud

38. It was part of the purpose of this scheme to defraud that defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY would use his official position as PGCPS CEO to secretly enrich himself by awarding PGCPS contracts that would benefit close associates, who would and did share the financial benefits with defendant HORNSBY.

Manner and Means of the Scheme to Defraud

39. It was part of this scheme to defraud that defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY would cause PGCPS to award contracts to benefit individuals with whom he had a close relationship.

a. With respect to the E-Rate contracts, defendant HORNSBY caused PGCPS to award contracts to Erate Managers, which benefitted the Former Employee. To that end, when PGCPS personnel selected Company A for the contract, defendant HORNSBY intervened to stop the award, and instead steered the contract to a company operated by the Former Employee. In this way, defendant HORNSBY approved and caused to be approved PGCPS contracts with Erate Managers potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.

b. With respect to the LeapFrog contract, defendant HORNSBY caused PGCPS to award a contract to benefit Owens, his long-time, live-in girlfriend. Specifically, defendant HORNSBY approved and caused to be approved PGCPS’ purchase of $956,280 worth of LeapTrack products.

40. It was further part of this scheme to defraud that defendant HORNSBY would benefit financially from the PGCPS contracts he caused to be awarded.

a. With respect to the E-Rate contracts, defendant HORNSBY agreed to receive from the Former Employee more than $100,000, which represented approximately half of the percentage fees to be paid by PGCPS. Defendant HORNSBY received $1,000 from the Former Employee as a down payment.

b. With respect to the LeapFrog contract, defendant HORNSBY agreed to and did receive from Owens $10,000, which represented half of her sales commission from the deal.

1. It was further part of this scheme to defraud that defendant HORNSBY would misrepresent and affirmatively conceal from the Board material information regarding the E-Rate and LeapFrog contracts, namely his financial interest in the contracts.
2. Among the means by which defendant HORNSBY undertook to misrepresent and conceal this material information regarding the E-Rate contracts were the following:

a. Defendant HORNSBY failed to disclose to the Board his business relationship with the Former Employee through QSCi and his financial interest in the E-Rate contracts.

b. In response to press inquiries in or about December 2004, defendant HORNSBY caused his spokesperson to represent falsely that QSCi had been dormant since his tenure began.

c. While driving to meet the Former Employee to discuss their agreement to share the contract proceeds on or about December 20, 2004, defendant HORNSBY took a circuitous route to identify and evade any surveillance. Defendant HORNSBY also undertook to determine whether his telephones were being monitored by law enforcement.

d. Defendant HORNSBY discussed with the Former Employee various methods to evade detection of the payments, including arranging for the Former Employee to purchase valuable items for him, such as property, a truck, art, and a yacht. To that end, defendant HORNSBY agreed to select something that the Former Employee could purchase for him, and stated that the payments would be “painless.”

e. During an interview with Huron auditors on or about May 10, 2005, defendant HORNSBY made materially false and misleading statements about the E-Rate contracts and his relationship with the Former Employee. The false statements, in sum and substance, included the following:

(i) Defendant HORNSBY represented falsely that the Former Employee did not work for QSCi and did not provide services to any of clients on behalf of QSCi.

(ii) Defendant HORNSBY represented falsely that PGCPS personnel did not select any of the five bidders for the initial E-Rate contract because their proposals did not respond to the RFP.

f. Defendant HORNSBY’s written response to the Huron report on or about June 5, 2005 made additional materially false and misleading statements about the E-Rate contracts and his involvement in E-Rate consulting to other school systems. The false statements, in sum and substance, included the following:

(i) Defendant HORNSBY represented falsely that after he assumed the leadership of PGCPS, he did not engage in or accept any new E-Rate business, and that he had secured the NFISD engagement before he accepted the CEO position, to conceal his ongoing E-Rate business with the Former Employee.

(ii) Defendant HORNSBY’s response represented falsely that he did not receive any personal benefit from the E-Rate contracts.

43. Among the means by which defendant HORNSBY undertook to misrepresent and conceal material information regarding the LeapFrog contract were the following:

a. Defendant HORNSBY failed to disclose to the Board Owens’ involvement in the contract and his financial benefit from the deal.

b. Defendant HORNSBY instructed Owens to eliminate emails and other records that would reveal her involvement in the LeapFrog contract.

c. When the media reports were published about the LeapFrog contract, defendant HORNSBY instructed Owens to take various measures to disassociate herself from him, including to change her address from their residence to another address. For example, on the day of the first report of the LeapFrog contract, Owens changed her address on file with LeapFrog from her residence with defendant HORNSBY to the residence of her parents in California. Defendant HORNSBY also reiterated his instruction to Owens to destroy records concerning the contract.

d. After learning of a federal criminal investigation of his activities, defendant HORNSBY instructed PGCPS personnel to destroy back-up computer tapes containing his and other PGCPS employees’ email. After issuing this order, defendant HORNSBY periodically inquired about the status of the endeavor to ensure its completion. Pursuant to defendant HORNSBY’s instruction, PGCPS personnel erased a substantial volume of email contained on the system’s backup tapes. Defendant HORNSBY was led to and did believe that the email had been destroyed, as he instructed. In fact, unbeknownst to defendant HORNSBY, PGCPS personnel secretly maintained a copy of certain back-up tapes containing his email.

e. During an interview with Huron representatives on or about May 10, 2005, defendant HORNSBY made materially false and misleading statements about the circumstances of the LeapFrog contract. The false statements, in sum and substance, included the following:

(i) Defendant HORNSBY represented falsely that he was not aware that Owens played any role in the LeapFrog contract.

(ii) Defendant HORNSBY represented falsely that he did not have any role or participate in negotiations to finalize the LeapFrog contract.

(iii) With respect to an email from Owens asking him to “please call” her LFSH supervisor, defendant HORNSBY represented falsely that he never called her supervisor and that calling her supervisor was something he never would have done.

f. Defendant HORNSBY’s written response to the Huron report on or about June 5, 2005 made additional materially false and misleading statements about the LeapFrog contract. The false statements, in sum and substance, included the following:

(i) Defendant HORNSBY’s response represented falsely that he was not directly involved in negotiations for the LeapFrog contract.

(ii) Defendant HORNSBY’s response represented falsely that he did not receive any personal financial benefit from the LeapFrog decision.

Execution of the Scheme to Defraud

for the purpose of executing the scheme and artifice to defraud, did transmit and cause to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, certain writings, signs, signals, and sounds, as listed below:

-19-

18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346 18 U.S.C. § 2

-20

COUNTS EIGHT THROUGH TWELVE

(Mail Fraud)The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 43 of Counts One through Seven are incorporated here.

2. On or about the dates listed below, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant

ANDRE J. HORNSBY for the purpose of executing and attempting to execute the scheme and artifice to defraud, knowingly caused to be placed in an authorized depository for mail the items described below, to be sent and delivered by the Postal Service; deposited and caused to be deposited the items described below to be sent and delivered by a commercial interstate carrier; and caused the following items to be delivered by the Postal Service and commercial interstate carrier, according to the direction thereon:

-21-

18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1346 18 U.S.C. § 2

-22-

COUNT THIRTEEN

(Evidence Tampering)The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 36 and 43(d) of Counts One through Seven are incorporated here.
2. Between on or about November 5, 2004 and on or about November 19, 2004, in the District of Maryland, the defendant

ANDRE J. HORNSBY attempted to and did knowingly corruptly persuade another person with intent to cause and induce a person to alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal certain objects, namely PGCPS electronic mail files, to impair their integrity and availability for use in official proceedings, that is, a federal Grand Jury investigation and any subsequent federal criminal proceedings involving defendant HORNSBY.

18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)

-23-

COUNT FOURTEEN

(Witness Tampering)The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 36 of Counts One through Seven are incorporated here.

The Computer

2. In or about the summer of 2004, defendant ANDRE J. HORNSBY and Sienna Owens used a Compaq Presario personal computer (the “Compaq computer”) for various purposes, including to create the commission-share agreement. On or about September 13, 2004, after the LeapFrog contract was consummated, Owens used an express courier to send the Compaq computer to the Former Employee. The Former Employee thereafter maintained the Compaq computer in Texas.

The Attempt to Destroy Evidence

3. On or about February 7, 2005, the Former Employee, who was cooperating with the FBI, represented to defendant HORNSBY that an Erate Managers representative had received a subpoena for computer files. The Former Employee informed defendant HORNSBY that the subpoena required the production of files from the Compaq computer. Defendant HORNSBY attempted to corruptly persuade the Former Employee not to produce the Compaq computer files, as described below:

Defendant HORNSBY: No. You told me the thing was clean. It was dead. The Former Employee: Yeah, but I told you I brought the hard drive back. Defendant HORNSBY: Hey, get it out of there. The Former Employee: And what I had...

When asked about the production of emails, defendant HORNSBY responded: “Well let me say this to you. Emails to me just saying you need stuff to do what you were doing, none of that exists for me. I wanna tell you that.”

1. During a telephone conversation on or about February 13, 2005, defendant HORNSBY continued to attempt to corruptly persuade the Former Employee not to produce the Compaq computer files. Defendant HORNSBY stated, among other things, that “people buy machines all the time and ... get rid of machines all the time and none of that’s a big deal ... Machines are bought every day and they’re gone every day. I mean that, that’s no big deal.”
2. During a meeting on or about February 19, 2005, defendant HORNSBY continued to attempt to corruptly persuade the Former Employee not to provide the Compaq computer files. Defendant HORNSBY suggested, among other things, that the Former Employee replace the old hard drive with a new hard drive.
3. Between on or about February 7, 2005 and in or about June 2005, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant

ANDRE J. HORNSBY attempted to and did knowingly corruptly persuade another person with intent to cause and induce a person (a) to withhold records, documents, and other objects, namely computer files, from an official proceeding, namely, the ongoing federal Grand Juryinvestigation in the District of Maryland and any subsequent federal criminal proceedings involving defendant HORNSBY; and (b) to alter, destroy, mutilate, and conceal certain objects, namely computer files, to impair their integrity and availability for use in the same official proceedings.

18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)

COUNT FIFTEEN

(Witness Tampering)The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 36 of Counts One through Seven are incorporated here.

2. On or about February 19, 2005, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant

ANDRE J. HORNSBY attempted to and did knowingly corruptly persuade another person, and engaged in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent (a) to influence a person’s testimony in an official proceeding, that is, the ongoing Grand Jury investigation in the District of Maryland and any subsequent federal criminal proceedings involving defendant HORNSBY, and (b) to hinder and prevent the communication of information relating to the commission and possible commission of a Federal offense to a law enforcement officer of the United States, that is, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, by making false and misleading statements to the Former Employee regarding the E-Rate consulting contracts, his agreement with the Former Employee to share the PGCPS contract proceeds, and his ongoing E-Rate business through QSCi.

18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)

COUNT SIXTEEN

(Obstruction of Justice)The Grand Jury for the District of Maryland further charges that:

1. Paragraphs 1 through 36 and 43(d) of Counts One through Seven and paragraphs 2 through 5 of Count Fourteen are incorporated here.
2. Between in or about February 2005 and June 2005, in the District of Maryland and elsewhere, the defendant

ANDRE J. HORNSBY corruptly influenced, obstructed and impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede, the due administration of justice, namely, the ongoing federal Grand Jury investigation that he knew was pending in the District of Maryland.

18 U.S.C. § 1503

ROD J. ROSENSTEIN UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

A TRUE BILL:

FOREPERSON August 22, 2006