Odometer Tampering Case:
Most recent update 11/22/05 (See end of document)
Associate of Former Oklahoma State Official Charged With Fraud
United States v. So (N.D. Okla.); United States v. Satterfield (N.D. Okla.); United States v. May (N.D. Okla.)
On Tuesday, October 5, 2004, a federal grand jury in Tulsa, Oklahoma, returned an indictment charging Sun Sok So with conspiracy, odometer tampering and mail fraud. According to the charges, So conspired with others to change the mileage readings on the odometers of hundreds of used motor vehicles from about 1996-2001 in the Tulsa, Oklahoma, area. So and his employees rolled back the odometers, according to the indictment. In a related case, on July 29, 2004, William R. Satterfield pled guilty to conpiracy and odometer tampering. He named So and Joseph May as co-conspirators. On September 20, 2004, May pled guilty to conspiracy and odometer tampering. Satterfield served as Chairman of the Oklahoma Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission from April 1995 until November 1996. In that position Satterfield held responsibility for law enforcement activities for the State involving car dealerships.
Former Oklahoma State Official Sentenced for Odometer Fraud
United States v. Satterfield, N.D. Okla., 04-CR-123-001 (Cook)
On December 3, 2004, William R. "Bill" Satterfield, Oklahoma, was sentenced by Senior United States District Judge H. Dale Cook to 50 months of imprisonment, and ordered to pay a $7,500 fine and $1,337,000 in restitution. Satterfield, a used car dealer, pled guilty to conspiracy and odometer tampering on August 26. Satterfield served as Chairman of the Oklahoma Used Motor Vehicle and Parts Commission from April 1995 until November 1996, where he was responsible for law enforcement activities of the State involving car dealerships, including preventing odometer fraud. Satterfield admitted at his plea hearing that he conspired with others to change the mileage readings on the odometers of hundreds of used motor vehicles from about 1995-2000 in the Tulsa, Oklahoma area.
William Satterfield filed a challenge to his conviction pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255 on June 29, 2005.
On September 13, 2005, the court issued an order answering Satterfield’s motion pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255. The court dismissed the portion of the motion that asked to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and dismissed his Motion to Stay Restitution as Moot. The remaining portion of the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence was denied based on his inability to show ineffective assistant of counsel warranting setting aside his plea agreement. The Motion for Correction of the Judgment to reflect interest to be paid on restitution was granted based on the minutes of the sentencing hearing, which reflected that this motion was appropriate. Finally, the Motion to Remove Attorney of Record was dismissed as moot because his trial counsel is no longer his counsel of record, and he is proceeding pro se.
CPB HOME PAGE