-1- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ______________________________________________X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -against- 3:13 cr 00170(HBF) RIVERVIEW SALES, INC. and DAVID LAGUERCIA Defendants. ______________________________________________X SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS RIVERVIEW SALES, INC., AND DAVID LAGUERCIA ALTCHILER LLC Robert Y. Altchiler, Esq. Attorney for the Defendants 111 Saugatuck Avenue Westport, CT 06880 (203) 222-3838 590 Madison Ave., 21 st fl New York, NY 10022 (212) 541.242
44
Embed
Riverview and Laguercia Original Sentencing Memorandum Final Sentencing ROBERT ALTCHILER Memorandum
Submitted to Scribd in response to ATF post sentencing statement taking a bow for its work in CT, and yet again misleading the public as to who oput the community in danger.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
-1-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT ______________________________________________X UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
-against- 3:13 cr 00170(HBF)
RIVERVIEW SALES, INC. and DAVID LAGUERCIA Defendants. ______________________________________________X
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS RIVERVIEW SALES, INC., AND DAVID LAGUERCIA
ALTCHILER LLC Robert Y. Altchiler, Esq.
Attorney for the Defendants 111 Saugatuck Avenue Westport, CT 06880 (203) 222-3838 590 Madison Ave., 21st fl New York, NY 10022 (212) 541.242
-2-
Introduction
David LaGuercia is a 57-year-old man who stands before this court convicted of
two misdemeanors, both arising from his operating as a Federal Firearms Licensee
(“FFL”). Riverview Sales, Inc. (“Riverview”), the co-defendant, is Mr. LaGuercia’s
company, and stands convicted of a single misdemeanor, also arising from Mr.
LaGuercia’s operating as an FFL. Neither Mr. LaGuercia, nor Riverview, has previously
been convicted of any crime, whether related to any FFL, or otherwise.
Two comprehensive and exhaustive Pre-Sentence Reports (“PSR”s) have been
prepared by the United States Department of Probation (“Probation”), one for Mr.
LaGuercia and one for Riverview. Based on the investigation conducted by Probation,
and its analysis of the information contained in the PSRs, the Probation Officer’s
Evaluation is that a “short period of probation and a financial penalty appear adequate to
address the conduct in the offense of conviction”. (Riverview PSR ¶ 45). We agree and
respectfully request the Court impose a sentence reflecting that evaluation.
As the two reports clearly reflect, the main thrust of this case is Riverview and
Mr. LaGuercia’s failure to properly maintain accurate records required by law. The case
also relates to the use of information or intelligence (information provided by customers,
understanding of regulations, and corrective instructions provided during earlier
inspections, etc.), operational security, staffing, and policies and procedures for the
-3-
operation of its business as an FFL, and as one of the highest volume gun dealers in the
State of Connecticut. More specifically, as to sales volume, as Mr. LaGuercia estimated,
Riverview sold roughly 6,000 guns annually (Riverview ¶32, LaGuercia ¶71). (The exact
number for sales from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012 is closer to 17,542.)
The defendants have accepted responsibility for their failures in these areas.
There is no doubt that the defendants failed to comply with a number of the
statutory requirements that govern FFLs and important recordkeeping obligations related
to regulating the firearms industry. The defendants were legally responsible for
Riverview’s compliance with laws and regulations and for the non-ultra vires actions of
employees transacting business in the name of the FFL. Simply put, the defendants failed,
and their violations bring them before this Court for sentencing upon their convictions,
each having pled guilty. Mr. LaGuercia, who has led a predominantly law-abiding life
asks the Court to understand that his transgressions arose from the way he ran his
business, and that he never has and never would, nor has, intentionally put someone at
risk.
The main import of the paperwork requirements of the Gun Control Act is making
sure people who shouldn’t possess guns don’t possess them, and that firearms may be
effectively and efficiently traced. Since becoming an FFL, Mr. LaGuercia had never
failed in either pursuit. More specifically, Mr. LaGuercia has never knowingly permitted
a firearm to be sold to a prohibited person and has never failed to effectively assist any
request for a trace of a weapon. Importantly, the paperwork failures have never impacted
the government’s ability to quickly trace any weapon sold at Riverview.
-4-
The Guidelines
Pursuant to the Guidelines Riverview has a culpability score of 3 (Riverview PSR
¶39), placing it in Zone A, with a corresponding potential fine range of $3,000 to $6,000.
Mr. LaGuercia’s total offense level is 4, with no prior criminal history, which places him
in Zone A under the guidelines. (LaGuercia PSR ¶4). The corresponding guideline range
is 0-6 months and a fine range of $250 to $5,000. Defendants with Zone A sentencing
ranges of 0-6 months are eligible for straight probation, probation with confinement
condition, or a fine as a sole sanction.
The PSRs
The PSR Addenda accurately reflect the defendant’s sentencing objections with
one exception. The defendant requested the reports contain the following:
In Riverview ¶ 26 and ¶ 27, the report address [sic] certain conduct by fired Riverview former employee Kristopher DiBella who admitted selling ammunition to a felon. DiBella was actually accused by that felon and the felon’s wife of repeatedly selling firearms to the wife of that felon for the felon’s possession and use, and repeatedly giving the felon access to firearms at shooting ranges in Connecticut. More specifically, the felon’s wife explained to federal agents that on Father’s Day 2011, DiBella brought firearms to a Connecticut shooting range and allowed the felon to use and shoot a .45 caliber pistol, a 10 mm pistol, a bolt action rifle, and a semi-automatic rifle DiBella said he had built. According to the felon’s wife, this incident occurred well after DiBella had been told her husband was a felon. The ATF acknowledged during the revocation hearings that Mr. LaGuercia was not involved in any of this activity involving the felon and his wife, but cited the sales of ammunition as a grounds for revocation, based on the doctrine of respondeat superior.
-5-
Impact of the Case and Other Factors on the Defendants
Mr. LaGuercia and Riverview have already sustained what might retrospectively
be viewed as a business “Death Penalty” in the form of the revocation of the FFL, on
December 20, 2012, an action that arose from many factors, but was indisputably in
response to the horrific events in Newtown, just days earlier, as well as what appears to
have been an intentional effort to blame Mr. LaGuercia and Riverview for what occurred
at Newtown.1 The revocation and the media strategy crippled Mr. LaGuercia and
Riverview. As Probation explains in its evaluation, the “media attention both the store
and Mr. LaGuercia has received as a result of the shooting…appears unfair and has
played at least some role in the decline of sales. As a result of no longer having the
Federal Firearms License the future of Riverview Sales, Inc. is dim.” (Riverview PSR ¶
45).
Contrary to the repeated efforts to make the defendants a face of the massacre,2
their conduct, Probation’s investigation, and the PSRs demonstrate the unfair nature of
that propaganda, and the apparent business impact it has taken. In concisely explaining
Probation’s findings, the LaGuercia PSR notes that the:
1 According to members of the legal team that represented Mr. LaGuercia during
the revocation proceedings, including the revocation hearing and the four months between the close of the hearing and the December 20 revocation, a full revocation had not been a part of the ongoing negotiations, directed at resolving the administrative case. Rather, according to participants, during the last conversation about an appropriate sanction, a temporary, 90-day shutdown of Riverview seemed to be acceptable to the government.
2 The government’s effort succeeded, in that there are probably as many photos of Riverview Sales in articles about the tragedy at Newtown as there are of Sandy Hook Elementary School or Nancy or Adam Lanza.
-6-
…evidence in this case reveals that Riverview Sales, Inc. was
lacking in regards to the specificity of the record keeping necessary
for the industry, in which they are a part of. As the owner and
operator of Riverview Sales. Inc, Mr. LaGuercia does and should
receive the bulk of the blame for the violations which occurred. Mr.
LaGuercia is the one who has to answer for one of his employees
selling a firearm to a prohibited person and another incident where a
firearm was stolen out of his store, in plain view of other employees
and customers. In regard to the blame, shaming and media attention
Mr. LaGuercia and Riverview Sales, Inc has received as a result of
the shooting on December 14, 2012, the words and reports seem
unjust.
(LaGuercia PSR ¶96).
The evaluation continues:
A broader view [of the relationship between Mr. LaGuercia and
Riverview and the December 14, 2012 horrors] would reveal
individuals throughout the country who purchased firearms from
respected gun stores and then went about their normal day. The fact
that the shooter involved in the December 14, 2012, incident was
provided weapons which were purchased at Riverview Sales, Inc.
should not be a factor when considering the facts/evidence of the
case against the store and Mr. LaGuercia.
-7-
(LaGuercia PSR ¶ 96).
Regardless, the economic impact of the revocation and the media are self-
evident, and unsurprising. In 2011, Riverview’s sales were approximately
$3,654,116.75. In 2012, the last sales year before the revocation, the sales were
approximately $4,433,880.27. In 2013, the first year Riverview operated after the
revocation and Newtown publicity, the sales were approximately $1.483,031.12.
(See Exhibit A-Rough Profit and Loss Estimates 2011-2013). That number
represents an approximate 66.5% decrease in sales.
The defendants have pled guilty and fully accepted responsibility for their
actions. The defendants pled guilty because they are guilty. This memo is
intended to assist the Court in its understanding of certain aspects of the case and
reflected in the Riverview and LaGuercia PSRs. Nothing herein is intended to
dilute the already expressed contrition and acknowledgement of guilt reflected in
the PSRs. For some reason, the government does seem intent to unfairly demonize
Mr. LaGuercia and Riverview, ignoring their cooperation and highlighting non-
criminal conduct. This memorandum is largely directed at the expected
continuation of that effort.
Pending Administrative Proceedings and the Search of Riverview
Indeed, as it happened, it seems there was absolutely no need whatsoever, either
for the warrant executed at Riverview December 20, nor for its execution on that date. At
-8-
the time, Riverview and Mr. LaGuercia, as FFL holders, were obligated to provide the
paperwork eventually seized (no firearms were seized or sought pursuant to the warrant-
only paperwork was seized) upon a simple request from the ATF.
As of December 20, the administrative revocation proceeding was still pending,
as it had been since the close of the hearings in early August, 2012. For the balance of
September, for all of October and November, and then for the first two weeks of
December, the proceeding remained pending. The government cannot dispute that if the
ATF had contacted Mr. LaGuercia on the morning of December 20, and informed him
they needed particular records, whether 4473s, the A&D book, or any other ATF-related
documents, Mr. LaGuercia would have been obligated to provide them immediately,
upon demand.
In January, 2011, Riverview was subject to a compliance inspection by ATF
Industry Operations Investigators. The inspection involved a complete inventory at
Riverview and review of related documents. On June 8, 2011, the Director of Industry
Operations, Boston Field Division issued a Notice of Revocation of Federal Firearms
License, ATF Form 4500(5300.4) to David LaGuercia, dba Riverview Sales. No
restrictions accompanied the Notice, nor did the Notice indicate that the grounds for
revocation warranted any expedited process or special attention. Riverview continued to
conduct its business as an FFL.
Over 13 months later, on July 25 and 27, 2012, with the FFL still in tact and
Riverview still conducting its business, the Director of Industry Operations, Boston Field
Division, issued a revised Notice of Revocation of Federal Firearms License, which
-9-
included allegations that then Riverview employee, Krystopher DiBella, had sold
ammunition to a prohibited person, and that DiBella had allowed a prohibited person to
handle firearms at Riverview. According to the ATF, a criminal investigation of an
individual who admitted to being a felon in possession of firearms, uncovered the fact
that DiBella had sold ammunition to a known felon, and allowed that felon to handle
firearms in the store. That was the first time David LaGuercia learned that DiBella had
engaged in such conduct.
On August 8 and 9, 2012, an informal hearing on the Notice of Revocation was
Held in Boston. Over those two days, both sides presented testimonial and documentary
evidence. When the hearing closed, approximately 18 months after the violations were
discovered, no special conditions were applied, and no emergency revocation occurred.
The FFL remained in tact, and Riverview continued doing business. Four months later,
on December 14, 2012, now approximately 22 months after the violations were
discovered, and more than 17 months after the initial Notice of Revocation was served on
Mr. LaGuercia and Riverview, no action had been taken concerning the revocation
proceedings. The FFL remained in tact and Riverview continued doing business.
Then December 14 came.
Conveniently omitted from the media reports, which began when the government,
on December 20, 2012 apparently leaked the upcoming raid to the media (specifically
Len Bestoff of NBC) more than three hours before the raid took place,
-10-
Len Besthoff !@lennbc 20 Dec 2012 Apparent ATF raid @ store where Lanza bought gun OnlyOn3 #wfsb @ Riverview Gun Sales http://instagr.am/p/Tea9q5oGEy/ Collapse
• 2:39 PM - 20 Dec 2012 from East Windsor, CT · Details
was the fact that Riverview and Mr. LaGuercia had been actively assisting the
ATF in its ongoing investigation into what had occurred at Sandy Hook and other related
matters.
The government was selectively providing information to the media
Len Besthoff !@lennbc 20 Dec 2012 Sources: Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor CT sold #NancyLanza at least one of guns used in #Newtown #wfsb Collapse
• Reply • Retweet • Favorite • More • RETWEET1
• 3:51 PM - 20 Dec 2012 · Details
in an attempt to publicly demonize and bury Riverview and Mr. LaGuercia before
they knew what was happening.
-11-
Len Besthoff !@lennbc 20 Dec 2012 #RiverviewGunSales got on radar screen after man with mental issues tried stealing 50 caliber long gun Saturday #wfsb Collapse
• Reply • Retweet • Favorite • More • RETWEET1
• 4:49 PM - 20 Dec 2012 · Details ___________________________________________ Len Besthoff !@lennbc 20 Dec 2012 Upon further investigation, police learned same man with mental issues succesfully stole AR-15 from #RiverviewGunSales 4 days earlier #wfsb Collapse
• Reply • Retweet • Favorite • More • RETWEETS2
• 4:52 PM - 20 Dec 2012 · Details ________________________________________________________________________ Len Besthoff !@lennbc 20 Dec 2012 police say this same man with mental issues stole 11 other weapons from #RiverviewGunSales, found in June 2011 @ father's home #wfsb Collapse
• Reply • Retweet • Favorite • More
4:53 PM - 20 Dec 2012 · Details ________________________________________________________________________
-12-
By the time the warrant was executed Riverview was already being tied to
Newtown, Jordan Marsh and an attack in Hartford. This was no accident. It seems that
the government believed it had an opportunity to undo the staggeringly huge volume of
negative press3 it had received in the last few years, with a high profile prosecution of a
firearms dealer coupled with a concerted media attack related to Newtown. So first they
pursued a search warrant for documents they could have easily had just for the asking,
and then put on a show for the media, while the Attorney General of the United States
met with the Governor of Connecticut and law enforcement officers in Newtown. It
seems the government was intent on showing Connecticut and the country it could do
something about the tragedy that had occurred. The East Windsor Police Department
actively assisted the federal government in its execution of the search warrants4 and in its
effective pursuit of a media strategy designed to cripple Riverview and Mr. LaGuercia
and destroy their names.
This was politics at its worst. The government no doubt viewed the situation as a
difficult problem. Additionally, the government also knew that it was exposed for failing
to prevent a young man with mental problems, who had previously been convicted of
stealing guns, had avoided federal prosecution for those offenses, who had received a
remarkably lenient sentence in connection with those thefts, to repeat his offenses by
This overt character assassination by the government, in the national media,
was clearly designed to continue the devastating destruction of Mr. LaGuercia’s
reputation.
The message the federal government and its state law enforcement partners
continued to disseminate was that Mr. LaGuercia cared nothing about the safety of
others, either in his capacity as FFL holder, as Riverview Sales owner, or in his personal
capacity as a gun owner. They publicly connected him to Newtown, Jordan Marsh and a
gun attack in Hartford. It is clear the government didn’t care in the least about the
significant negative implications the attacks would have on Riverview or Mr. LaGuercia.
To the contrary, the government overtly sought to destroy Mr. LaGuercia’s name and his
business. The government wanted to show the public that it was protecting it, and that it
knew how to do its job, did it competently, and that any dangers to the public stemmed
from David LaGuercia and Riverview, rather than the government’s failures or
inadequacies. The government’s unwarranted and unjustified attacks invite scrutiny of it
own actions.
Ironically, such examination reveals that Riverview’s security, as faulty as it may
have been, in some ways, reflects the difficulties that exist in regulatory and paperwork
compliance connected to firearms. For example, if the government were to be candid, it
would acknowledge that the Jordan Marsh incident is a manifestation of a lack of
organizational security, staffing, and other controls, that have often to be found lacking in
the government’s own organizational operations connected to firearms. The government
11 The defendants requested the U.S. Attorney investigate a number of law
enforcement leaks related to this case, from the initial tweets about the raid, to the leaks in April, 2013 revealing the administrative findings generated in the revocation proceeding, but were told the investigation was unsuccessful.
-24-
should not put undue blame on the defendants for security failures that pale in
comparison to those committed by the world’s experts in firearms safety.
Riverview’s security failures in connection with the Marsh thefts are not, not
have they ever been, criminal. There is no danger they may reoccur, because Riverview’s
FFL has been revoked. The government’s repeated focus on the thefts is apparently yet
another attempt to unfairly smear Mr. LaGuercia and Riverview, by focusing media
attention on the defendants, and linking them to another potentially dangerous situation.
As noted above, Mr. LaGuercia knew nothing of Mr. DiBella’s interactions with the felon
and the felon’s wife, yet somehow Mr. LaGuercia is to blame. The linkage of Mr.
LaGuercia to an attack in Hartford had nothing to do with him or Riverview.
The government, however, knew all about the DiBella transactions, and did
nothing. The government is clearly holding Mr. LaGuercia to a much higher standard and
much more responsible for “protecting the public” than it does itself.
Earlier last year when the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel exposed a botched
ATF sting in Milwaukee — that included agents hiring a brain-damaged man to promote
an undercover storefront and then arresting him for his work — ATF officials told
Congress the failed Milwaukee operation was an isolated case of inadequate supervision.
It wasn't. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reviewed thousands of pages of court records,
police reports and other documents and interviewed dozens of people involved in six
ATF operations nationwide that were publicly praised by the ATF in recent years for
nabbing violent criminals and making cities safer.12
According to the Journal Sentinel, agents with the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, used tactics similar to those used in Milwaukee in
every operation, from Portland, Ore., to Pensacola, Fla.
Among the findings:
" ATF agents befriended mentally disabled people to drum up business and later arrested them in at least four cities in addition to Milwaukee. In Wichita, Kan., ATF agents referred to a man with a low IQ as "slow-headed" before deciding to secretly use him as a key cog in their sting. And agents in Albuquerque, N.M., gave a brain-damaged drug addict with little knowledge of weapons a "tutorial" on machine guns, hoping he could find them one. " Agents in several cities opened undercover gun- and drug-buying operations in safe zones near churches and schools, allowed juveniles to come in and play video games and teens to smoke marijuana, and provided alcohol to underage youths. In Portland, attorneys for three teens who were charged said a female agent dressed provocatively, flirted with the boys and encouraged them to bring drugs and weapons to the store to sell. " As they did in Milwaukee, agents in other cities offered sky-high prices for guns, leading suspects to buy firearms at stores and turn around and sell them to undercover agents for a quick profit. In other stings, agents ran fake pawnshops and readily bought stolen items, such as electronics and bikes — no questions asked — spurring burglaries and theft. In Atlanta, agents bought guns that had been stolen just hours earlier, several ripped off from police cars. " Agents pressed suspects for specific firearms that could fetch tougher penalties in court. They allowed felons to walk out of the stores armed with guns. In Wichita, agents suggested a felon take a shotgun, saw it off and bring it back — and provided instructions on how to do it. The sawed-off gun allowed them to charge the man with a more serious crime. " In Pensacola, the ATF hired a felon to run its pawnshop. The move widened the pool of potential targets, boosting arrest numbers. Even those trying to sell guns legally could be charged if they knowingly sold to a felon. The ATF's pawnshop partner was later convicted of pointing a loaded gun at someone outside a bar. According to the reports, instead of a stiff sentence typically handed down to repeat offenders in federal court, he got six months in jail — and a pat on the back from the prosecutor.13
inspector-general-report-says/2013/06/27/ac7fc58a-dcf9-11e2-85de-c03ca84cb4ef_story.html (“The U.S. Park Police has lost track of thousands of handguns, rifles and machine guns in what a government watchdog agency concluded is the latest example of mismanagement on a police force trusted to protect millions of visitors to the city’s iconic monuments.”)
-31-
victimized by a person intent upon stealing from them. As noted above, the federal
government has knowingly put weapons in the hands of felons and mentally challenged
people in different parts of the country, something the defendants would never even
contemplate doing. In this case, the government intentionally concealed DiBella’s
conduct from the defendants, allowing DiBella to remain in a position where he could
engage in similar conduct with other felons and other prohibited person, whenever he
liked.
Where was the government’s concern for the safety of the community at that
point? Where was the governments concern that DiBella might have been engaging in
similar conduct with other felons or other prohibited persons? The same questions may
be asked about the felon and the felon’s wife, who both escaped prosecution. The
government has selectively downplayed the dangerousness of Mr. DiBella’s actions,
ignored the government’s own conduct connected to Jordan Marsh, and repeatedly
connected the defendants to Newtown, in order to make Mr. LaGuercia seem worse than
he is.
The above reports concerning ATF operations also reflects the agency’s poor
decision-making in connection with some of its operations. Permitting DiBella to
continue selling weapons and ammunition at Riverview for more than a year, after
learning of his dealings with the felon and the felon’s wife, was an atrocious decision that
put the community at significant risk. It also put the defendants at risk and was then used
by the government in its attempt to revoke the FFL.
Similarly, it seems the government remains unduly focused on Mr. LaGuercia and
-32-
Riverview’s non-criminal conduct related to Jordan Marsh, and his thefts of firearms
from Riverview, and on out-of-state sales, though the government acknowledges the sales
did not violate any law. Mr. Marsh stole guns from Riverview, and it is clear that lax
security played a significant role in at least the theft on video. However, lax security is
not a criminal offense, and some would suggest the main reason, as noted above, Mr.
Marsh was positioned to continue his criminal conduct was due to earlier governmental
failures.27 In fact, those government failures exposed Mr. LaGuercia, himself, to real
danger, when Marsh returned to the store to steal weapons.
The ATF permitted Riverview and Mr. LaGuercia to continue operating as an
FFL after repeated inspections citing numerous violations, because it knew the
community was not at risk as a result of those violations. Riverview was a high volume
dealer, and repeatedly made mistakes in required paperwork over its years of operations.
That the community was not at risk is demonstrated by the length of time that elapsed
between the finding of violations in January, 2011, and the eventual revocation on
December 20, 2012, and the related timing of steps in the process, as described above.
The first time the dangerousness of Riverview’s conduct was suggested was after
Newtown, and it was discovered two weapons had been legally purchased at Riverview.
Up to that point, notwithstanding the number of violations and the full
administrative hearing, no one from the government had suggested Riverview or Mr.
LaGuercia posed a danger to the community. Cynically, the government has manipulated
the DiBella interactions with the felon and the felon’s wife to shield itself and DiBella
(whose relationship with the ATF and government still remains unknown) while using
Profit/Loss is calculated on all sales that were CLOSED within the selected time frame. OPEN sales, which include outstanding special orders and layaways are included in this report once they are paid off completely AND CLOSED OUT.
This Profit Assumes a cost has been associated with all products at the time of sale. If not, the cost defaults to $0.00 and the profit becomes the selling price as opposed to selling price minus cost. Cost = Trade in Price on a trade-in
It is therefore CRITICAL to this report that the costs be loaded into the system. Run the Detailed Profit / Loss Report to see the exact numbers.
29.15%
$422,970.04
Refunds
$1,285,223.05
$864,215.26
$28,641.15
Cost on Refunds $19,095.19
$197,808.07
$185,338.07
Taxed
$972.19
Tax Exempt
$274.90
This Report Includes transactions on all registers wherein the close date of the receipt was within the From and To Date. This is not specific to a register or to an open/close session.
Taxed Sales Refers to Totals of items that were taxed (The tax amount is NOT included in this total, however!)
Total % Profit = (Total Sales Taxed -All Refunds + Tax Exempt Sales - Total Costs) / (Total Taxed and Tax Exempt Sales-All Refunds )
The following transactions are included in this report. Sale of New, used, serialized, non-serialized, and sale of consigned items. Refunds of any kind, count as losses and figure into the NET profit (thereby reducing it).
Trade-ins are included in the sales figure, but are listed separately. Direct Buys are not included in this calculation at all.
Total Sales include the sale of inventory, services and fees for standard sales, closed layaways and closed special orders.
Total Receipt Lines Used: Total Receipt Lines Skipped38587 1024Sum Checker
COD/Drawer Deposit, Store Credit, Manual Adjustments, Quotes, Trades and Direct Buys are NOT counted in this report.
This Report Does Not require inventory items to contain category and/or department information and is included even when these are blank.
Row Totals
$1,483,031.12
$1,049,553.33
$29,613.34
$19,370.09
Trade-ins $2,185.05
Trade Ins: Some perceive trades as "refunds" thereby lowering the profit, while others do not. Trades are not included in the above calculations, but listed separately for your calculations. To include them, add them where ever you see Refunds.
46
Layaways
Standard Sales
Special Orders
Direct Buys
Cash
Credit Card
Debit Card
Personal Check
Traveler's Check
Store Credit
Transaction Type and Payment Type Summaries for Selected Dates (based on Closed Receipts w/in time Period)
# Items* $$ Totals
70330
909
0
410
$1,467,480.91
$15,071.41
$0.00
$5,678.45 Gift Certificate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Refunds 914 $29,613.34
*# Items = Quantity * Line ItemInternet 18 $478.80
Gift Certificate Sales $1,750.00
Gift Certificate Sales are Listed Here but are NOT included in the profit/loss until they are used as tender....
19
Trades $2,185.05 0.00 $2,185.05
Net Profit $ = (Sales - Trades - Refunds) - (Costs on Sales - Cost of Refunds - Cost on Trades)
Cost on Trades $1,920.55 0.00 $1,920.55
$422,970. / $1,451,232.7 = $
Report Title: Date/Time Report Was Run: 12/26/2013 10:46:38 AM
1Page Number:
Report Run By: David LaGuercia
-39-
Profit / Loss Summary Report From Date:
To Date:
Store Name Riverview Sales
1/1/2012
12/31/2012
Sales
Costs on Sales
NET Profit ($) :
Total % Percent Profit :
IMPORTANT NOTES
Profit/Loss is calculated on all sales that were CLOSED within the selected time frame. OPEN sales, which include outstanding special orders and layaways are included in this report once they are paid off completely AND CLOSED OUT.
This Profit Assumes a cost has been associated with all products at the time of sale. If not, the cost defaults to $0.00 and the profit becomes the selling price as opposed to selling price minus cost. Cost = Trade in Price on a trade-in
It is therefore CRITICAL to this report that the costs be loaded into the system. Run the Detailed Profit / Loss Report to see the exact numbers.
25.66%
$1,039,757.89
Refunds
$3,934,632.68
$2,989,390.13
$55,000.38
Cost on Refunds $38,579.74
$499,247.59
$387,303.11
Taxed
$5,331.21
Tax Exempt
$4,221.53
This Report Includes transactions on all registers wherein the close date of the receipt was within the From and To Date. This is not specific to a register or to an open/close session.
Taxed Sales Refers to Totals of items that were taxed (The tax amount is NOT included in this total, however!)
Total % Profit = (Total Sales Taxed -All Refunds + Tax Exempt Sales - Total Costs) / (Total Taxed and Tax Exempt Sales-All Refunds )
The following transactions are included in this report. Sale of New, used, serialized, non-serialized, and sale of consigned items. Refunds of any kind, count as losses and figure into the NET profit (thereby reducing it).
Trade-ins are included in the sales figure, but are listed separately. Direct Buys are not included in this calculation at all.
Total Sales include the sale of inventory, services and fees for standard sales, closed layaways and closed special orders.
Total Receipt Lines Used: Total Receipt Lines Skipped59278 3600Sum Checker
COD/Drawer Deposit, Store Credit, Manual Adjustments, Quotes, Trades and Direct Buys are NOT counted in this report.
This Report Does Not require inventory items to contain category and/or department information and is included even when these are blank.
Row Totals
$4,433,880.27
$3,376,693.24
$60,331.60
$42,801.27
Trade-ins $321,109.44
Trade Ins: Some perceive trades as "refunds" thereby lowering the profit, while others do not. Trades are not included in the above calculations, but listed separately for your calculations. To include them, add them where ever you see Refunds.
1093
Layaways
Standard Sales
Special Orders
Direct Buys
Cash
Credit Card
Debit Card
Personal Check
Traveler's Check
Store Credit
Transaction Type and Payment Type Summaries for Selected Dates (based on Closed Receipts w/in time Period)
# Items* $$ Totals
86492
2845
18
1696
$3,711,265.63
$520,236.73
$2,275.15
$296,965.26 Gift Certificate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Refunds 1257 $60,331.60
*# Items = Quantity * Line ItemInternet 775 $200,167.26
Gift Certificate Sales $20,466.44
Gift Certificate Sales are Listed Here but are NOT included in the profit/loss until they are used as tender....
776
Trades $321,109.44 0.00 $321,109.44
Net Profit $ = (Sales - Trades - Refunds) - (Costs on Sales - Cost of Refunds - Cost on Trades)
Cost on Trades $321,210.63 0.00 $321,210.63
$1,039,75 / $4,052,439.2 = $
Report Title: Date/Time Report Was Run: 12/26/2013 10:50:23 AM
1Page Number:
Report Run By: David LaGuercia
-40-
Profit / Loss Summary Report From Date:
To Date:
Store Name Riverview Sales
1/1/2011
12/31/2011
Sales
Costs on Sales
NET Profit ($) :
Total % Percent Profit :
IMPORTANT NOTES
Profit/Loss is calculated on all sales that were CLOSED within the selected time frame. OPEN sales, which include outstanding special orders and layaways are included in this report once they are paid off completely AND CLOSED OUT.
This Profit Assumes a cost has been associated with all products at the time of sale. If not, the cost defaults to $0.00 and the profit becomes the selling price as opposed to selling price minus cost. Cost = Trade in Price on a trade-in
It is therefore CRITICAL to this report that the costs be loaded into the system. Run the Detailed Profit / Loss Report to see the exact numbers.
25.14%
$814,751.89
Refunds
$3,300,117.11
$2,542,908.57
$53,984.26
Cost on Refunds $38,624.97
$353,999.64
$280,152.56
Taxed
$3,952.42
Tax Exempt
$3,155.47
This Report Includes transactions on all registers wherein the close date of the receipt was within the From and To Date. This is not specific to a register or to an open/close session.
Taxed Sales Refers to Totals of items that were taxed (The tax amount is NOT included in this total, however!)
Total % Profit = (Total Sales Taxed -All Refunds + Tax Exempt Sales - Total Costs) / (Total Taxed and Tax Exempt Sales-All Refunds )
The following transactions are included in this report. Sale of New, used, serialized, non-serialized, and sale of consigned items. Refunds of any kind, count as losses and figure into the NET profit (thereby reducing it).
Trade-ins are included in the sales figure, but are listed separately. Direct Buys are not included in this calculation at all.
Total Sales include the sale of inventory, services and fees for standard sales, closed layaways and closed special orders.
Total Receipt Lines Used: Total Receipt Lines Skipped47566 2973Sum Checker
COD/Drawer Deposit, Store Credit, Manual Adjustments, Quotes, Trades and Direct Buys are NOT counted in this report.
This Report Does Not require inventory items to contain category and/or department information and is included even when these are blank.
Row Totals
$3,654,116.75
$2,823,061.13
$57,936.68
$41,780.44
Trade-ins $355,418.80
Trade Ins: Some perceive trades as "refunds" thereby lowering the profit, while others do not. Trades are not included in the above calculations, but listed separately for your calculations. To include them, add them where ever you see Refunds.
1188
Layaways
Standard Sales
Special Orders
Direct Buys
Cash
Credit Card
Debit Card
Personal Check
Traveler's Check
Store Credit
Transaction Type and Payment Type Summaries for Selected Dates (based on Closed Receipts w/in time Period)
# Items* $$ Totals
58828
3006
2
1328
$3,001,842.37
$492,686.60
$698.00
$207,180.70 Gift Certificate
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Refunds 1060 $57,936.68
*# Items = Quantity * Line ItemInternet 700 $158,889.78
Gift Certificate Sales $20,156.94
Gift Certificate Sales are Listed Here but are NOT included in the profit/loss until they are used as tender....
701
Trades $355,418.80 0.00 $355,418.80
Net Profit $ = (Sales - Trades - Refunds) - (Costs on Sales - Cost of Refunds - Cost on Trades)
Cost on Trades $355,271.30 0.00 $355,271.30
$814,751. / $3,240,761.2 = $
Report Title: Date/Time Report Was Run: 12/26/2013 10:56:13 AM