Affidavit of Richard Holcomb

3 Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 1 of 12 Page D# 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE .. LET 7 MB EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA steam, yrs, melanoma. vsaomta Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. i Criminal No. 1:13mj642 MARK STUART LANDERSMAN, a.k.a. Mark Stuart, Defendant. i 1, Richard E. Holcomb, being duly sworn, depose and state as follows: l. I am a Supervisory Special Agent of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS). I have been employed by the NCIS since October 2004. I am assigned to the general crimes squad at the Washington Field Of?ce, Washington, DC, where I have been assigned since August 12., 2012. The squad specializes in the investigation of felony violations including narcotics use/possession/distribution, illegal weapons possession/use/distribution, larceny, child pornography and sexual assaults among others, committed in Northern Virginia, Washington, DC and parts of Maryland. As part of my duties, I have supervised an investigation into the possession of illegal weapons in violation of the NF A, as well as the unlawful distribution of weapons parts overseas. As a Special Agent for the NCIS, your Af?ant is authorized to investigate violations of laws of the United States and is a law enforcement of?cer with the authority to execute warrants issued under the authority of the. United States.

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 2 of 12 Page D# 26 2. Based on my training and experience, I know that it is unlawful under 26 U.S.C. 5861(0 and for any person to make a ?rearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter and for any person to transport, deliver, or receive any ?rearm in interstate commerce which has not been registered as required by this chapter. I also know that it is unlawful under 18 U.S.C. to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, dealing, shipping, transporting, or receiving ?rearms without a license. 3. The facts and information contained in this af?davit are based on my personal knowledge and observations made during the course of this investigation, information conveyed to me by other law enforcement personnel, and a review of records and documents. 4. This af?davit is submitted in support of a complaint charging MARK LANDERSMAN with conspiracy to commit the following offenses: (1) wire Mud, and (2) transportation, delivery, and receipt of unregistered ?rearms; in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1343, and 26 U.S.C. 58610). This af?davit is for the limited purpose of establishing probable cause in support of a criminal complaint and arrest warrant. It is not intended to include each and every fact and matter observed by me or known to the govemrnent. I have set forth only those facts necessary to support probable cause. PROBABLE CAUSE 5. MARK STUART LANDERSMAN resides and owns/operates businesses in Temecula, CA. Businesses associated with MARK LANDERSMAN include Advanced Machining and Engineering (AME), Fourth Street Automotive, and Fourth Street Racing.

I Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 3 of 12 Page D# 27 6. Conspirator #1 -is a civilian senior executive within the Department of Navy, employed at the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, within the Eastern District of Virginia. Conspirator #1 also resides in the Eastern District of Virginia. 7. Conspirator #2 _is a civilian employee of the Department of Navy who works in the same of?ce as, and is a direct subordinate of, Conspirator Conspirator #2 also resides in the Eastern District of Virginia. 8. Conspirator #3 is a civilian employee of the Department of Navyiwho works in the same of?ce as, and is a direct subordinate of, Conspirator ConSpirator #3 also resides in the Eastern District of Virginia. 9. On April 21, 2011, Mark LANDERSMAN sent an email ?om his personal email account to Conspirator This email appears to be a forwarding of earlier email traf?c that day between MARK LANDERSMAN and an individual representing a company called Selex Galileo Inc. In that email, MARK LANDERSMAN states that it is necessary to continue development immediately with a June 2011 funding date for the 5 Sustainable Suppressor proposal.? The MK 15 is a long-range anti-material ri?e that ?res a .50 BMG round. 10. A partially-recovered email was sent on July 13, 2011 to Conspirator This email was sent to Conspirator #1 ?5 work email address and references that attached to the email is an offering for sole source procurement of the ?Sustainable Signature Suppressor System.? Due to the method in which this email was recovered, the attachment was not recovered. On September 9, 2011, Conspirator #1 forwarded that email to Conspirator #2 stating, ?Keep this close hold.? 1 1. On June 6, 2012, Conspirator #1 emailed a senior Department of Navy of?cial, outlining the required operating budget for his of?ce by summarizing ?ve separate intelligence

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 4 of 12 Page D# 28 related mission areas that his of?ce was/would be undertaking. The mission areas included studies, assessments and a research project. The total estimated cost of the ?ve objectives was estimated by Conspirator #1 to be three million dollars None of these costs or objectives addressed weaponry, or speci?cally ?rearm suppressors. 12. On July 5, 2012, an individual sent an email from his/her personal email account to Conspirator #1 ?5 work address. The email had a subject of ?Suppressor?, but bore no email narrative. There were ?ve photographs attached to the email which were of a silencer which has four internal baf?es, and has at least one end that can be unscrewed to break the suppressor down into its component pieces. In the background of the photographs a display case can be seen, indicating that the photographs were taken in a retail store. 13. On August 13, 2012, Conspirator #1 sent an email to MARK LANDERSMAN and requested that LAN DERSMAN provide the prOper name of his company. 14. On August 14, 2012, MARK LANDERSMAN sent an email to Conspirator #1 stating that his company information is ?Advanced Machining and Engineering?, ?(951) 852 1653?, Conspirator #1 responded later that day stating that he received the information. 15. On August 14, 2012, approximately two minutes after replying to MARK email, Conspirator #1 forwarded the company contact information email to Conspirator 16. On August 14, 2012, Conspirator sent an email to MARK LANDERSMAN with a website link in the narrative of the email. Conspirator #1 stated, ?Look this over. ..Looks very much like what we?re going to send The link in the narrative is to a website which has an article entitled, ?How I Built a 300 AAC Blackout Suppressor?, and in great detail

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 5 of 12 Page D# 29 chronicles how the author manufactured a ri?e suppressor. The ?rst line of the website?s narrative states, ?Warning: You must have a BATFE Form 1 with tax stamp before you start to legally build a suppressor. National Firearms Act (NFA) rules apply and you can do hard prison time for violating the law.? 17. On August 14, 2012, MARK LAN DERSMAN replied to the suppressor website email, and stated, ?Wow! very simple.? According to Pentagon telephone records for Conspirators #1 and on August 14, 2012, both had telephone conversations with a phone number associated with MARK LANDERSMAN and his business, AME. 19. On August 15, 2012, an email was sent from the Department of Navy?s Financial Management Division indicating that Conspirator #1 ?5 of?ce received a budgetary supplement of two million dollars 20. On August 17, 2012, Conspirator #3 signed a funding document that resulted in $1,932,376 being moved from the Department of Navy office where Conspirators and #3 work to a CACI Inc. (hereafter referred to as CACI) government contract. CACI is a government contract company that controls an intelligence related contract that is used by the Department of Navy of?ces, among other intelligence community agencies. 21. On September 4, 2012, a representative of International Police Supply emailed Conspirators #1 and #2 regarding communications that the representative had with the Sure?re company regarding suppressors. Sure?re is a company headquartered in Fountain Valley, California, that is in the business of producing ?ashlights, ri?e suppressors, and other tactical equipment. The representative indicated that, ?Sure?re will custom build the dis-assemblable . suppressor (.30 cal) that you requested.? The email indicated that Sure?re would need further

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 6 of 12 Page D# 30 details on speci?cations. The representative stated that the suppressor would ?be transferred to you via approved ATF paperwork.? 22. On September 10, 2012, Conspirator #3 emailed Conspirator #2 and CACI, among other people, in an attempt to coordinate a meeting to discuss the requirements for the $1,900,000. Conspirator #3 stated that Conspirator #2 would be the ?lead? on this. 23. According to the California Secretary of State business records website, a company named ADVANCED MACHINING ENGINEERING, entity C3515906, was incorporated on October 30, 2012. 24. On October 19, 2012, Conspirator #2 emailed a CACI representative and stated that the point of contact to get started is ?Mark Stuart of Applied Engineering and Materials? and ?Phone: 951-851-1653.? 25. The CACI representative replied with a request that Conspirator #2 provide a statement of work to MARK LANDERSMAN to obtain a quote for the service. The CACI representative also requested ajusti?cation for the ?sole source? purchase, as CACI requires a sole source justi?cation or three separate comparable quotes to establish a vendor. The CACI representative requested con?rmation that the total estimate for parts and labor would be 1.9 million dollars Conspirator #2 replied that he will provide a statement of work, and a sole sourcejusti?cation, and con?rmed the total cost amount. 26. On October 22, 2012, Conspirator #2 emailed CACI representatives and provided a sole source justi?cation to use Mark Stuart?s (MARK business of, ?Other subcontractors were not considered due to the fact that they do not possess the expertise required to do the job nor possess the unique preprietary tooling systems created by AME to produce the required enhancements needed. Their proprietary system is wholly, and solely exclusive to

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 7 of 12 Page D# 31 AME and therefore unavailable by any other subcontractor." Conspirator #2 further stated, currently has sole proprietary expertise that is not commercially offered by other companies or individuals. It is the only responsible source for the engineering expertise sought and no other services will satisfy requirements. Their product is ?rst that incorporates a unique design that signi?cantly reduces the decibel ratings to near background noise levels. All technologies are developed and owned exclusively by AME and no licensing agreements currently exist, providing a unique opportunity for CACI and the end customer to utilize proprietary engineering and services not readily available elsewhere.? 27. In an October 23, 2012 email from Conspirator #2 to a CACI representative regarding the statement of work, Conspirator #2 states, ?The contractor will provide the subcontractor with 50 percent of the contract upon completion of the subcontract agreement. The subcontractor will make ?nal delivery of 400 units of item number AME-74KA no later than 30 April 2013. Upon delivery and inspection and acceptance trials, the subcontractor will receive the balance due.? 28. A CACI representative emailed Conspirator #2 attempting to con?rm the business name of Applied Materials and Engineering and their phone number because he had dif?culty locating the company and the phone number was disconnected. On October 23, 2012, Conspirator #2 responded stating that he had a typographical error on the phone number and that it should be (951) 852-1653. Conspirator #2 con?rmed that the business name is correct. Conspirator #2 asked how the process works, and stated that he is interested because of other plans that they have. 29. On November 16, 2012, a CACI representative emailed Conspirator #2 with a subject of status?, and stated that he is waiting for the vendor to supply him with a few

9 Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 8 of 12 Page D# 32 things, but that the order should be completed in approximately two business days. Conspirator #2 responded to this email on December 3, 2012, and provided a delivery address for the ?goods? of ?5803 Bayside Rd. 4 Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732 Hold for: [Witness This location in Chesapeake Beach, Maryland is a government facility. The CACI representative responded by stating that CACI issued the purchase order to AME, but that CACI had not received the con?rmation response back or the invoice for the ?fty percent up front prepayment. 30. On November 21, 2012, an email was sent to MARK LANDERSMAN and Conspirator #1 stating, just came across an email from [name removed] saying that [he/she] is now working for a company called KAKI. Can it be the same company that Mark is working through?? 31. On March 27, 2013, the Affiant interviewed a witness (Witness at the Pentagon who works within Conspirator?s Of?ce, who stated that it was his belief based upon the CACI invoices that he had seen, that the $2 million dollars of Government funds that were transferred to Conspirator #1 ?3 of?ce were requested under one pretense, then misused on the CACI contract. Witness #2 stated that to his knowledge none of the funding was spent on the ?ve mission areas that had been outlined in Conspirator #1 ?s justi?cation. 32. On April 2, 2013, Witness #2 emailed the Af?ant an electronic cepy of an invoice from ADVANCED MACHINING AND ENGINEERING, dated December 4, 2012. The invoice has one line item, depicting a quantity of 349 Signature Suppressors (item code: AME 74KA), at a unit cost of $4,750.00, for a total invoice total of $1,657,750. The shipping address listed on the invoice is 5803 Bayside Road, Building 4, Chesapeake Beach, MD 20732. The invoice re?ects a shipping date of February 6, 2013. Witness #2 also emailed the Af?ant a scanned electronic copy of the DD Form 250 (Material Inspection and Receiving Report) that

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 9 of 12 Page D# 33 accompanied the invoice. This document appears to be signed by Conspirator #2 in two separate locations on February 14, 2013. By signing this document, Conspirator #2 attested ?acceptance of listed items has been made by me or under my supervision and they conform to contract, except as noted herein or on supporting documentation.? There are no additional notes on the form. By signing in the second location on the document, Conspirator #2 attested that all of the goods were received in apparent good condition. The DD Form 250 lists a per unit price of $5,422.41 for the 349 Signature Suppressors, for a total cost of $1,892,421.09. Subsequent email contact between a witness (Witness and a representative re?ected that this per unit cost differential was due to indirect rate cost and contract fee. According to the Sure?re website, their ri?e suppressors for .556 caliber ri?e suppressors vary in retail price from $1,299.00 to $1,699.00. The General Services Administration website lists prices for Sure?re ri?e suppressors, both for .556 and .762 calibers, ranging from $937.05 to $1,274.00. This suggests that the per unit price of $5,422.41.00 that was paid by the Department of Navy for the 349 Signature Suppressors was excessive. 33. The Af?ant obtained a copy of a CACI expense summary, dated November 30, 2012, which documents a pending expense for ?scal year 2013 for ?[Conspirator Effort? in the amount of $1 ,899,226. 34. On April 3, 2013, the Af?ant went to 5803 Bayside Road, Building 4, Chesapeake Beach, MD, 20732, which is a government facility, and seized four boxes matching the description outlined in the ADVANCED MACHINING AND ENGINEERING invoice as well as the DD Form 250. The cardboard boxes had shipping labels indicating that they were sent from MARK LANDERSMAN, with a return address of 30265 Rogue Circle, Temecula, CA 92591, with a phone number of (951) 852-1653. The boxes were addressed to the attention of

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 10 of 12 Page D# 34 Witness Handwriting on the boxes indicated that they should be held for Conspirator Upon later examination, it was determined that the contents of the four boxes were 349 ri?e suppressors. Each suppressor was individually boxed in a cardboard box with a label bearing the writing AME74KA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GOVERNMENT The suppressors had removable end caps at each end, were painted black on the outside of the tube, and contained four internal baf?es. A sampling review of the suppressors revealed that there were no markings (manufacturer name, manufacturer model, serial number, etc.) on the suppressors, including on any of the internal components. The overall ?t of the packages was very precise, including the presence of empty suppressor boxes that served as ?lling for the box to avoid shifting during shipment. 35. On April 8, 2013 the ATP Firearms Technology Branch (FTB) conducted an examination of four (4) of the 349 silencers recovered during this investigation. FTB determined these 4 silencers by design, construction, and function, are each a device for silencing, muf?ing, or diminishing the report of a portable ?rearm and, therefore, are each a ?silencer? as de?ned in 18 USC 921(a)(24). These 4 silencers are also each a ??rearm? as de?ned in 18 U.S.C. 92l(a)(3)(C) and 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(7). 36. On April 18, 2013, during a telephone call between Conspirator #2 and Witness Conspirator #2 stated that contents of the boxes that were shipped to Chesapeake Beach, Maryland were non-attributable suppression systems for ?ash and sound for the AK family of weapons. 1 Title 26, United States Code, Section 5842(a) provides ?Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a ?rearm shall identify each ?rearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identi?cation as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. 10

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 11 of 12 Page D# 35 37. On May 23, 2013, ATP agents interviewed Witness #4 in Temecula, California. Witness #4 is a machinist who was previously employed by MARK LANDERSMAN at AME. Witness #4 stated that he took over struggling business approximately two years ago. Witness #4 continued to lease equipment from LANDERSMAN. After Witness #4 began running AME, Witness #4 would receive blueprints from LANDERSMAN for automobile parts and other projects. Witness #4 indicated that LAN DERSMAN provided blueprints to make what LANDERSMAN described as a ?small engine muffler.? LANDERSMAN, however, never provided a photograph or diagram of the engine, only the muf?er. LAN DERSMAN gave Witness #4 approximately two thousand dollars ($2,000) to purchase enough material to make about 250 to 300 muf?ers. Witness #4 completed the project in December 2012. Witness #4 indicated that LANDERSMAN paid him approximately eight thousand dollars ($8,000) . Witness #4 stated that LANDERSMAN personally picked up the completed project. Witness #4 admitted in retrospect that the ?muffler? parts did appear to resemble ?rearm silencers. 38. A query of records maintained by the ATF National Firearms Act (NFA) Branch determined that no National Firearms Registration and Transfer Records existed for MARK LANDERSMAN, to include the trade names of Advanced Machining Engineering (AME), and Fourth Street Automotive, or Conspirators or 39. A query of records maintained by the ATP Federal Firearms Licensing Center determined that MARK LANDERSMAN did not have an ATF Federal Firearms License. In addition, a query of these records for AME, and Fourth Street Automotive revealed these trade names did not have ATF Federal Firearms Licenses. 11

Case Document 10 Filed 10/30/13 Page 12 of 12 Page D# 36 CONCLUSION 40. Based upon the foregoing, I believe probable cause exists to conclude that, from June 2012 through April 2013, in the Eastern District of Virginia and elsewhere, MARK LANDERSMAN conspired with others to commit wire fraud, and to transport, deliver, and receive unregistered ?rearms in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and 1343, and 26 U.S.C. 58610). Richard E. Holcom Special Agent Naval Criminal Investigative Service SUBSC BED and SWORN to before me this deay of October, 2013 IS, Theresa Carroll Buchanan United States Magistrate Judge Honorable Theresa Carroll Buchanan United States Magistrate Judge 12