Court filing
MOTION to Dismiss (Renewed Motion to Dismiss Count One for Duplicity) filed by Nathan Reis,… — Blueacorn (Dkt. 180)
Summary
Defendants' Renewed Joint Opposed Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Superseding Indictment for Duplicity in United States v. Nathan Reis and Stephanie Hockridge, No. 4:24-cr-00287-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, filed May 29, 2025 as Document 180 under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(i). The motion argues that Count One of the Superseding Indictment (Doc. #163) alleges at least two separate conspiracies tied to Round 1 and Round 2 of the Paycheck Protection Program. It contends the rounds differed in timing, objects, participants and scale, contrasting less than $140,000 in loans alleged for Round 1 with more than $60 million in losses claimed for Round 2. It argues a single count risks a non-unanimous verdict and cites Kotteakos v. United States. The certificate of conference states that the government opposes the motion.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
No. 4:24-cr-00287-O · Doc. 180 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID 1998
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, §
§
Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Case No. 4:24 CR-00287-O
§
NATHAN REIS and § (01)
STEPHANIE HOCKRIDGE, a/k/a § (02)
STEPHANIE REIS, §
§
Defendants. §
DEFENDANTS’ RENEWED JOINT OPPOSED MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNT ONE OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT FOR DUPLICITY
COME NOW Defendants Nathan Reis and Stephanie Hockridge (collectively, Defendants),
by and through their undersigned counsel, and hereby renew their motion to dismiss Count One of
the Superseding Indictment (Doc. #163) as impermissibly duplicitous. See Fed. R. Crim. P.
12(b)(3)(B)(i). In support of the renewed motion, Defendants state the following:
1. Despite having had the opportunity to correct the duplicity of its original Indictment,
the Government has obtained a Superseding Indictment that is worse than the first. The new
indictment, which resembles the original Indictment in most respects but differs in several
significant ones, has now lopped off two alleged coconspirators, further underscoring the lack of
common participants and objects between the conduct alleged to have occurred between the two
distinct rounds of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
2. Like the original Indictment before it, Count One of the Superseding Indictment
alleges at least two separate conspiracies concerning purportedly fraudulent applications to obtain
loans under the PPP. The conduct alleged during 2020 aligned with PPP Round 1, which ended in
August 2020 (“Round 1”). That alleged conspiratorial conduct was extremely limited: it involved
1
US-DOCS\160127333.1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID 1999
submitting applications for PPP loans only for the Defendants and two acquaintances—not vast
swaths of the borrowing public. Moreover, during Round 1 of the PPP, Defendants and co-
conspirators allegedly acted as consultants to borrowers, assisting individuals and businesses
apply for PPP loans. Any alleged conspiracy related to Round 1 of the PPP, as sheer matter of
logic, must have ended by August 2020, when Round 1 concluded.
3. More than five months later, in January 2021, Round 2 of the PPP program began
(“Round 2”). Round 2 was materially different from Round 1: during the second round, the SBA
took multiple steps to expand lending opportunities to small-business borrowers.
4. The alleged conduct related to Round 2 was not only distinct from the Round 1
conduct as a temporal matter; it was also of a fundamentally different nature and quality.
According to the Superseding Indictment, Defendants “expanded [their] operations through . . .
lender service provider agreement[s]” they entered into in October 2020 and April 2021 (both of
which post-dated PPP Round 1). Superseding Indictment (Doc. #163) ¶ 16(d). Under those
agreements, an entirely new company, Fin Cap, Inc. acted on behalf of lenders to package and
submit loan applications from qualified borrowers. And under those agreements, Defendants’
company was now entitled to receive payments from lenders for processing borrower applications.
5. Ms. Hockridge is also alleged during Round 2 to have created a program known as
the “VIPPP” program (which did not exist during the earlier phases of the PPP program) whereby
borrowers were offered a “personalized service” to assist them in submitting their loans in
exchange for an additional fee. Id. ¶ 16(e). Ms. Hockridge allegedly “recruited coconspirators to
work as VIPPP referral agents and coach borrowers on how to submit false PPP loan applications.”
Id. No similar conduct is alleged during Round 1.
2
US-DOCS\160127333.1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID 2000
6. The Round 1 and Round 2 conduct, as alleged in the Superseding Indictment,
differed in many material respects. They occurred at different times, aligning with materially
different phases of the PPP program under distinct statutory and regulatory schemes. They had
different objects, insofar as Defendants are alleged in Round 2 to have obtained fees from lenders
that were not even available to them during Round 1. They involved different manners and means,
with the Superseding Indictment alleging that the Defendants had direct knowledge of the
falsehood of applications submitted in Round 1, which the Defendants concededly lacked during
Round 2. They involved different participants, most notably Eric Karnezis, who took no part in
any alleged conduct during Round 1, but who the Government alleges was responsible for tens of
millions of dollars in fraudulent loans during Round 2. And they had drastically different scales,
with the alleged Round 1 conduct involving less than $140,000 in purportedly fraudulent loans,
compared to more than $60 million claimed by the Government as losses from the alleged criminal
conduct during Round 2.
7. Perhaps most importantly, the anticipated proof with respect to Round 1 and
Round 2 is of an entirely different nature. With respect to loans obtained during Round 1, the
Government intends to prove that the Defendants had actual knowledge of the falsity of loan
applications they helped borrowers submit. In Round 2, the Government acknowledges that neither
Defendant had direct contact with the borrowers Eric Karnezis recruited, and therefore they would
not have had actual knowledge of the falsity of any statements by the borrowers he referred. Instead,
the Government seeks to prove the existence of a conspiracy during Round 2 chiefly through Mr.
Karnezis’s uncorroborated and self-serving testimony.
8. Allowing the Government to pursue these numerous separate conspiracies in a
single count, as though they were one conspiracy, will unfairly prejudice the Defendants, creating
3
US-DOCS\160127333.1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID 2001
the genuine risk that the jury might be invited to convict both Defendants without reaching
unanimity as to which of the several distinct conspiracies each defendant participated in (or
whether any particular conspiracy existed in the first place). The Government’s approach also
poses the “danger[] of transference of guilt from one to another across the lines separating
conspiracies, subconsciously or otherwise.” Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 774 (1946).
9. To avoid these dangers, Defendants respectfully move the Court to dismiss Count
One, thereby requiring the Government either to obtain a new indictment with the separate
conspiracies alleged in the Superseding Indictment charged separately, or to go to trial on the
remaining counts of the Superseding Indictment.
10. A memorandum of law in support of this motion is contemporaneously filed
herewith.
11. Prior to filing the instant motion, the undersigned conferred via videoconference
with AUSA Matthew Weybrecht, who indicated that the Government opposes the Defendants’
being granted the relief requested herein.
WHEREFORE Defendants Nathan Reis and Stephanie Hockridge respectfully request that
the Court grant their Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Superseding Indictment (Doc. #163),
and for such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May___, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
/s/ Kevin A. Chambers
Kevin Andrew Chambers (Pro Hac Vice)
DC Bar No. 495126
555 11th Street NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Tel: (202) 637-2200
Fax: (202) 637-2201
4
US-DOCS\160127333.1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID 2002
kevin.chambers@lw.com
Matthew S. Salerno (Pro Hac Vice)
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Tel: (212) 906-1200
Fax: (212) 751-4864
matthew.salerno@lw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Nathan Reis
Michael P. Heiskell, TX Bar: 09383700
JOHNSON, VAUGH & HEISKELL
5601 Bridge Street, Suite 220
Fort Worth, Texas 76112
Tel: (817) 457-2999
Fax: (817) 496-1102
mheiskell@johnson-vaughn-heiskell.com
Attorneys for Defendant Nathan Reis
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
/s/ Richard E. Finneran
RICHARD E. FINNERAN
211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
Tel: (314) 259-2000
Fax: (314) 259-2020
richard.finneran@bryancave.com
Attorneys for Defendant Stephanie Hockridge
GALLIAN FIRM
/s/ Gregg Gallian
Gregg Gallian, TX Bar: 24085952
3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1150
Dallas, Texas 75219
Tel: (214) 432-8860
Fax: (972) 433-5835
gregg@gallianfirm.com
5
US-DOCS\160127333.1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID 2003
Attorneys for Defendant Stephanie Hockridge
6
US-DOCS\160127333.1
Case 4:24-cr-00287-O Document 180 Filed 05/29/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID 2004
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
I hereby certify that I conferred with AUSA Matthew Weybrecht via videoconference on
May 22, 2025, who indicated that the Government opposed the Defendants being granted the relief
requested herein.
/s/ Richard Finneran
RICHARD E. FINNERAN
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served on all
counsel of record by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system.
/s/ Richard Finneran
RICHARD E. FINNERAN
7
US-DOCS\160127333.1
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.txnd.396981.180.0.pdf
- Size
- 144,371 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6eaf1f9abcd5665263915ac4533c7f448dc0183ae67285fde4c628ce088a7f3d
- Original
- archive.org