Federal Sentencing Report

by Kristen FescoeApril 07, 2003

Federal Sentencing Evaluation

 

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Sentencing Evaluation of Andrew R.

Kristen Fescoe

Forensic Assessment

 

Forensic Evaluation

 

Re: Andrew Rhea

DOB: 6/17/53

 

Referral

 

Anthony Glover is a 49-year-old Caucasian Male who is pleading guilty to one count of bank fraud, violating 18 U.S.C. S 1344. The elements of this charge are that the defendant did:

  1. knowingly
  2. attempt to execute a scheme or artifice to (a) defraud or (b) obtain money owned by or under the custody of
  3. a federally insured financial institution

 

Procedures

 

Andrew Glover was evaluated on one occasion in the visiting room of the Federal Detention Center. In addition to a clinical interview, Andrew was administered a standard objective test of mental and emotional functioning (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, 2nd edition, or MMPI-2) and a structured inventory of symptoms of mental and emotional disorder, (the Brief Symptom Inventory or BSI). He was administered the BSI once concerning to his state of mind at the time of the offense and a second time related to his present mental state. The following documents, obtained through Andrew’s attorney, were also reviewed as part of this evaluation:

  • Change of Plea Memorandum
  • Medical Records from Circles of Care
  • Circle of Care Psychiatric Evaluations

 

Prior to the evaluation, Andrew was notified about the purpose of the evaluation and the associated limits on confidentiality. He understood the basic purpose of the evaluation, reporting back his understanding that he would be evaluated and that a written report would be submitted to his attorney. He further understood that the report could be used in his trial and, if it were, copies would be provided to the prosecution and the court.

 

Description of the Current Offense

 

The plea change memorandum states that Andrew began seeking a loan to borrow money for working capital in 1997. Shortly after he began looking, he came into contact with Ken Kilpatrick, a business development representative with National Penn Bank. Mr. Kilpatrick referred Andrew to Donald Schnable, a lending officer with the same bank.

In 1997 Andrew reports applying for the loan and did not receive the loan until 1998.The change of plea memorandum confirms that Andrew fraudulently obtained a line of credit from National Penn Bank in Boyertown, PA. According to this memorandum, Andrew supplied the bank with three counterfeit invoices. Andrew confirmed this information. 

            The plea change memorandum stated that in March, 1998 Mr. Schnable visited Rhea’s office and informed him that the invoices did not appear legitimate and the bank was calling back the loan. Because Mr. Rhea could not pay back the loan, the bank then referred the matter to the FBI.

In 1998 the FBI called to inform him that he was the subject of a bank investigation. They told him that they felt the loan had been granted based on fictitious information, which is a violation of 18 U.S.C. S 1344 . The amount of the line of credit was $100,000 but he borrowed $87,000. Andrew stated that he thought he was going to get a couple of “big jobs”; when he evaluated the money that would be coming from these “big jobs” he calculated that he was going to be receiving 2.7 million, although he could only directly account for 2 million. 

Realizing that he was the subject of a serious investigation, he called attorney Howard Finkleman in Philadelphia. He was directed to see a tax attorney, which he did.  This attorney directed Andrew to hire a new accountant. The accountant instructed Andrew to get a new accounting system. This new system led him to the conclusion that there was only $30,000 of money coming into the company (from work already complete or soon to be complete,) rather than the anticipated $270,000. He explained that he had extensive expenses, such as two private school tuitions for his children and a divorce settlement. He made the conclusion that he was broke.

Andrew understood and explained that the formal charge that resulted from the bank investigation was three fraudulent invoices made between October and December of 1997. These were for jobs that Andrew believed he had secured. No money was ever received from these three invoices.

During this time, Andrew reports feeling depressed and low much of the time. He was also having trouble dealing with his divorce. He reports that his wife was trying to get one million dollars of his money, which she thought was half of his worth. He would cope with his depression by traveling to Key West, FL.

 

Relevant History

 

Some of the historical information described in this section was obtained from collateral sources, and some was obtained directly from Anthony. Whenever possible, we attempted to assess the consistency of factual information through the use of multiple sources.

According to self-report Andrew was born in 1953. He was the youngest child of two, with one sister who is ten years older, (this information is confirmed by his Circle of Care psychiatric evaluation). Andrew reports living a “nice, quiet life,” and that his father was rarely at home, working much of the time. His father worked as a prosecuting lawyer for his township and his mother was a secretary. His mother and father are still married and living in Salem, NJ.

Andrew attended private catholic schools throughout all of his early education. During his interview he reports having good attendance at school and attaining mostly C’s. He also reports having low interest throughout his school career. As a teenager, Andrew remembers wanting to “go off and see the world.”

Andrew spent a total of five years in college, but reportedly did not graduate. He attended Cumberland Community College in New Jersey, West Virginia University, The University of Delaware, Drexel University in Philadelphia, PA and the American College in Laysan, Switzerland.  Andrew said that by age 18 he was out seeing the world but would frequently return home in order to seek his father’s approval. His father wanted him to become a lawyer, but Andrew was not interested in law.

After leaving West Virginia University in 1976, Andrew obtained a job as a technician at the Salem Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey. He was given a promotion to labor supervisor. According to his Circle of Care Psychiatric Evaluation, Andrew spent much of his money at this time on gambling and women.

Andrew reports that he has been married four times, which is confirmed by his previous psychiatric evaluation. The first marriage lasted ten months. The second marriage lasted fourteen years and produced two children. The third marriage was brief, but how long is not stated. He is now in the process of divorcing his fourth wife. At the time of his Circles of Care psychiatric evaluation, Andrew described his wife as caring and supportive, but his description of his wife now is much more negativistic. During this previous evaluation he also reported questioning his own sexuality. He denies and homosexual relationships, but identifies certain “yearnings to be one.”

In 1978 Andrew reports having been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident. He fell asleep while driving, and he ran into a motorcycle. The motorcyclist was killed. He was sentenced to two years probation and 65 days of work release.

In 1981 he was hired by at different section within the same power plant to work as the lead engineer for contracts. He held this position until 1988, when he obtained a position with the Atlanta Contracting Company for The William Power Group. He was responsible for maintenance within power plants in Virginia, Arizona and Florida. He was responsible for supervising up to 600 people at one time.  

In early 1995 Andrew started his company, R.P Industries, Inc. (“RPI”). This company involved the application of epoxy coatings to the interior linings of various industrial items that contain and process water, such as heat exchangers, pumps and tanks.

In 1995 Andrew began noticing a number of psychological symptoms. He reports poor concentration, depressed mood, feeling quiet and sullen. He approached his daughter for help, but later decided to “buck up” and deal with his problems on his own. In 1996 he says he saw a psychiatrist in Woodstown, NJ. The psychiatrist prescribed Valium. Andrew took a number of the pills at one time. He claims that this was not a suicide attempt; rather he says that he “needed quiet.”     

 

Treatment History

Andrew was treated from November, 2000 until June, 2001 by the staff at Circle of Care, specifically Dr. T.S. Baskaran. During his psychiatric assessment in November, 2001, Andrew was diagnosed by Dr. Baskaran as having Axis I disorders of Dysthymic Disorder, Chronic, Early-Onset, Mild to Moderate, as well as Major Depressive Disorder. Dr. Baskaran also gave a Rule Out Diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder II, depressed type. An Axis II diagnosis of Passive, Dependant, and Histrionic Features was also given. The Circles of Care records show that Andrew was treated at Bridgeton Hospital in August, 2000, where he was given a diagnosis of Bipolar Disorder. During the evaluation, Andrew endorsed the following symptoms: problems sleeping, depression, relationship problems, job problems, anxiety and nervousness.

            During his second evaluation, in December of 2000, his Axis I diagnosis was changed to Bipolar II Disorder, depressed Type and Dysthymic Disorder. He was reevaluated in January, February, March and April of 2001 and his diagnosis remained the same. While being cared for by Circles of Care staff, Andrew was prescribed many variations of the following medications: Prozac, Trazadone, Litium, and Xanax.

 

Current Clinical Condition

 

Andrew presents as a 49-year-old Caucasian male, who appeared his stated age. He has a medium / slender build and was dressed in Federal Detention Center garb. He had two tattoos and some noticeable skin pigmentation problems. He was cooperative and polite throughout the interview. He had no problems with attention or concentration and was able to focus throughout the interview and the tests that were administered. He was correctly oriented to time, place and person.

During the present evaluation, Andrew did not report experiencing any perceptual disturbances (visual or auditory), and his train of thought was clear and logical. Although a measure of intelligence was not administered, Andrew appears to be functioning with above-average intelligence.

            Andrew responded to the items on the MMPI in a cooperative manner that produced a valid profile, although he did present himself in a favorable manner. Individuals with such profiles (Welsch Code 9’4+35-6782/1:0# K-L/F:) are often described as being extroverted, enthusiastic, verbal, spontaneous and uninhibited. These individuals are often outgoing, sociable and enjoy attention. Also, these individuals make very good impressions but their relationships are often superficial. They may appear fun loving and will often be seen as the “life of the party.” This profile also shows that Andrew may not see his current situation as extreme. This profile also shows manipulative and impulsive personality features.

            Andrew was also administered a structured inventory of symptoms of mental and emotional disorder, the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI). He was asked to complete the BSI twice, once considering his mental state at the time of the offense and once considering his present mental state. Related to the time of the offense, Andrew endorsed some of the following items: poor appetite, blaming others for his problems, being easily annoyed, cannot trust others, lacks interest, views people as unfriendly, feeling inferior, hopelessness about future, poor concentration and feels people take advantage of him. When completing the BSI for current mental state, Andrew endorsed fewer symptoms and at a lower severity. Some of the endorsed items were feeling people cannot be trusted, feeling lonely, feeling blocked in getting things done, anger, depression, poor concentration and being tense.

 

Treatment Needs and Amenability

Andrew has three areas in which he has treatment / rehabilitation needs, which, if addressed, should reduce his risk for future antisocial behavior. These areas include mental health assessment and treatment, dealing with interpersonal relationships, problem solving approached to improve decision - making.

            First, Andrew would benefit from ongoing mental health assessment and treatment. Consideration should go towards Andrew’s diagnoses of Dysthymic Disorder, Bi Polar Disorder and Impulsive Personality Features. It is possible that his criminal activities may have been symptomatic results of his psychiatric disorders. An ongoing assessment would allow a definitive diagnosis to be made and an appropriate treatment plan to be created. Because Andrew spent much of his life untreated for his possible disorders, thorough treatment is necessary to decrease future antisocial behavior.

            Second, it is important for Andrew to learn to deal with Interpersonal Relationships. He has had four unsuccessful marriages. He also appears to lack a social support system. By developing healthier relationships, as well as a system for social support he may bye more equipped to deal with the symptoms of his Bi Polar Disorder and Depressive Disorder. Also, his future potential of antisocial behaviors may be decreased.

            The third treatment need deals with learning problem-solving approaches to improve decision - making. His decision - making appears to be impulsive and may be influenced by his existing psychiatric disorders. Increasing his ability to make logical well-thought out decisions, may decrease his potential future anti-social behaviors.

 
Conclusions

 

In the opinion of the undersigned, based on all of the above, Andrew has treatment/rehabilitation needs in the following areas:

  1. Mental health assessment and treatment
  2. Dealing with interpersonal relationships
  3. Problem solving approached to improve decision-making.

 

If these interventions can be made successful, Anthony’s risk of future offending should be reduced. Parole would be helpful, upon Andrew’s release may help ensure that these areas are still addressed even after he is no longer in a secure setting. 

 

Kristen Fescoe, MS