Response in Opposition to Defendant's Objections — USA v. Thomas (Dkt. 103, N.D. Okla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma · No. 4:21-cr-00239-GKF · Doc. 103 · 2022-05-25 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
ALETA NECOLE THOMAS, 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 21-CR-239-GKF 
 
 
 
Response in Opposition to Defendant’s 
Objections to the Presentence Investigative Report  
 
 
The Court should overrule Ms. Thomas’s Objections to the Presentence 
Investigative Report (Doc. 98) because the PSR accurately describes Thomas’s role 
in submitting 33 fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan applications 
and correctly applies the enhancement for obstruction of justice related to Thomas’s 
false statements to the grand jury. Further, the PSR conservatively calculates the 
actual loss of $774,753.50 attributable to Thomas and correctly applies the 
enhancement for Thomas serving as an organizer or leader of a group of more than 
five other participants in her fraud scheme.  
1. The PSR accurately describes Thomas’s role in recruiting and assisting other 
participants in her loan fraud scheme.    
 
The PSR at ¶ 14 accurately states that Thomas actively recruited and instructed 
other people in making false statements to receive PPP loans. Moreover, the PSR 
correctly details that loan proceeds were deposited into Thomas’s bank account, 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 1 of 12

2 
 
although some other participants in fact possessed their own bank accounts.1 
Thomas falsely claims that she received no consideration for assisting other people in 
their PPP loan applications. These claims are false because witness interviews reveal 
instances in which Thomas retained tens of thousands of dollars in loan proceeds in 
exchange for assisting two people with the typing and preparation of loan 
applications and supporting documents.2 Thomas’s Facebook Messenger 
communications show that Thomas recruited participants into her fraud scheme. In 
one instance, Thomas initiated contact with a friend and offered to assist this friend 
with her PPP loan in exchange for 30 percent of the loan.3   
The PSR at ¶ 14 accurately describes Thomas’s offense conduct and relevant 
conduct, consistent with USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). In this case, the grand jury indicted 
Thomas for making false statements in five separate fraudulent “PPP” loans she 
obtained on behalf of her purported businesses (Doc. 48, Counts 1-5). The grand jury 
also indicted Thomas for making false statements in loan applications in which she 
claimed to be a self-employed individual and received the maximum allowed amount 
of $20,833.00 per loan. (Id. Counts 6-7). The grand jury indicted Thomas for 
recruiting and assisting others in making false statements in their PPP loan 
applications. (Id. Counts 8-15).       
Under the Sentencing Guidelines, relevant conduct includes “all acts and 
omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, or 
 
1 J. Hudson Tr. pp. 11; K. Pittman Tr. 23.  
2 K. Pittman Tr. p. 13, 19; K. Hudson Grand Jury Tr. pp. 15-19.  
3 Aleta Thomas Facebook Messenger Search Warrant Return p. 11978-81.   
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 2 of 12

3 
 
willfully caused by the defendants; . . . .” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A). In other words, 
Thomas is responsible for the acts of the other people she recruited, assisted, and 
caused to submit fraudulent PPP loan applications. Here, the discovery contains 
multiple statements by Thomas’s friends and family describing how she encouraged 
and helped them to apply and assisted them with their applications for PPP loans.4   
For example, in her May 18, 2021 interview, Katrina West explained how she 
learned about the PPP loan program from her sister-in-law, Aleta Thomas, and that 
Thomas helped West prepare her PPP application and the supporting tax 
documents. Disc. p. 6713-73; West Tr. pp 7-8. Further, West met with Thomas at 
Thomas’s house, and Thomas typed West’s information into electronic forms while 
West dictated information to her. Id. pp. 10-11. After Thomas completed the PPP 
application, West electronically signed it, and the loan proceeds were deposited into 
Thomas’s Tulsa Federal Credit Union account. Similarly, Danee Thomas described 
how her aunt, Aleta Thomas, completed Danee Thomas’s PPP loan application and 
supporting tax documents while the two of them sat together. Disc. pp. 6685-6699; 
D. Thomas Tr. pp. 4-5. Likewise, Gail Herrin testified that she completed the 
supporting tax documents for her PPP loan with Thomas. Together, the two women 
searched the internet (Google) to identify what numbers to include in the forms. Disc 
pp. 9303-35, Herrin Tr. pp. 20-21. 
 
4; Jayveon Hudson Interview Disc. pp. 8249-69; J. Hudson Tr. p. 2 lns. 50-61; p.7, lns. 721-
5; Kyren Pittman Interview Disc. pp 8284-9320, Pittman Tr pp. 2-3 lns. 50-56; 107-113; 
Kennedy Hudson Interview Disc. pp 9433-9461, Hudson Tr. p. 10-14.  Pepper Jones 
Interview, Disc. pp. 9904-9983; Jones Trans. pp. 26-27; 34 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 3 of 12

4 
 
Similarly, the discovery contains 30 pages of emails between Thomas’s friends 
and family members and the case agent. In these emails Thomas’s friends and family 
notified the government that they gave Thomas permission to apply for PPP loans 
and deposit the loan proceeds into her account.5 Furthermore, the loan application 
supporting documents corroborate the fact Thomas aided other people in submitting 
fraudulent PPP loan applications. For example, Thomas’s 2019 IRS 1040, Schedule 
C Profit and Loss from Business attachments are identical to the same documents 
Thomas prepared for Pepper Jones, Marqwesha Davis, Jayveon Hudson, and 
Katrina West.6   
Consistent with the relevant conduct definition and the evidence, the PSR 
accurately describes Thomas’s role in recruiting, instructing, and assisting friends 
and family in making false statements in their PPP loan applications. Consequently, 
the Court should overrule Thomas’s objection to PSR ¶ 14.      
2. Thomas obstructed justice when she made false statements to the grand jury and federal 
agents about paying two complete strangers who allegedly assisted her with her first four 
PPP loan applications resulting in needless delay and allowing Thomas to continue her 
lengthy fraud scheme.     
 
The PSR at ¶ 16 correctly applies the sentencing adjustment for Obstruction of 
Justice because Thomas made materially false statements under oath before the 
grand jury on February 19, 2021, and five days later to federal agents. The 
Sentencing Guidelines include a non-exhaustive list of conduct for which the 
obstruction of justice enhancement applies. USSG § 3C1.1, cmt. n.4. Thomas’s 
 
5 Disc. pp. 3019-49 Aleta Thomas Email Correspondence MOA_Final 04-09-2021 
6 Disc. pp. 7698, 7741, 8127, 8165, 7612, 6942, and 7018 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 4 of 12

5 
 
statements caused federal agents to take unnecessary and time-consuming 
investigative steps to attempt to validate the existence of Joniayah Harrison and Gail 
Jackson and locate them. These efforts included securing two federal search warrants 
and reviewing tens of thousands of communications all while Thomas continued to 
commit loan fraud during the Spring of 2021. Here, Thomas’s false statements to the 
grand jury about Joniayah Harrison and Gail Jackson are analogous to the cmt. 
n.4(G) because Thomas made materially false statements to the grand jury and 
federal agents that significantly obstructed or delayed their investigation.  
During her grand jury testimony, Thomas stated that despite her existing banking 
relationship with Tulsa Federal Credit Union, where she received a $75,000 PPP 
loan, she looked for assistance in applying for PPP loans from strangers who she met 
on Facebook. PSR ¶ 19; A. Thomas Tr. p 16. Without even a telephone number and 
during the height of a pandemic, Thomas allegedly went alone armed only with her 
computer, to complete PPP loan applications at Woodland Hills mall with complete 
strangers, later identified by Thomas. Id. pp. 17-8; 45-6.  
According to Thomas, she allegedly provided Harrison with her email account 
password and bank account information so that Harrison could track the status of 
Thomas’ PPP loan applications. Id. pp. 27, 50, and 71. This level of trust is 
incredible, given the fact that Harrison and her associate “Gail Jackson” refused to 
give Thomas their telephone numbers or other contact information. Id. pp.45-6; 50.  
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 5 of 12

6 
 
Five days after her grand jury testimony, the agents served Thomas with a grand 
jury subpoena for records of her purported businesses. At this time, Thomas 
maintained that she messaged Harrison using Facebook Messenger.    
Based upon Thomas’s statements to them and grand jury testimony about 
Joniayah Harrison and Gail Jackson, federal agents obtained two federal search 
warrants – one for Thomas’s Facebook account and a second for Thomas’s Gmail 
account to attempt to identify and locate these two accomplices. While awaiting 
these search warrant returns, Thomas continued to violate the law, this time securing 
$120,000 from Arvest Bank and more than $40,000 in PPP funds for allegedly being 
self-employed. (Doc. 48, Counts 5-15).     
Thomas’s email and Facebook Messenger messages reveal no communications 
between Thomas and Joniayah Harrison or Gail Jackson. There are also no 
communications with anyone related to a meeting at Woodland Hills mall. Instead, 
Thomas’s Facebook Messenger communications show Thomas recruited Heather 
Overstreet and ShaRita Yarbrough to apply for PPP loans during the same time 
frame she allegedly requested Harrison’s and Jackson’s assistance.7    
In this case, the overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion Thomas lied in 
her grand jury testimony to deflect the attention of federal agents and downplay her 
role in her loan fraud scheme. In fact, Thomas’s statements about Joniayah Harrison 
and Gail Jackson resulted in significant, time-consuming investigation and allowed 
 
7 Facebook Search Warrant return, p. 9549;11978-81 (The timeframe of Thomas’s first four fraudulent PPP 
loan applications includes May 4 until June 16, 2020. The Facebook Search Warrant covers Facebook 
Messenger messages sent to and from Thomas between April 1 to September 1, 2020.  Disc. p. 9591.    
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 6 of 12

7 
 
Thomas to recruit 10 other people to violate the law with her. To the extent that 
Pepper Jones believes she met Joniayah Harrison or Gail Jackson at the mall, Ms. 
Jones’ credibility is highly questionable given the fact she remembers limited 
information about the woman, and Jones herself admitted to lying to the United 
States government to obtain PPP loan proceeds she was not entitled to receive. 
Consequently, and given Thomas’s materially false testimony before the grand jury 
and to federal agents that resulted in them securing two additional search warrants 
and analyzing tens of thousands of additional pages of evidence, the two-level 
enhancement for obstructing justice contained in PSR ¶ 16 is appropriate.   
3. The PSR conservatively calculates the loss amount attributable to Thomas and her 
fraud scheme.    
 
No ruling by the Court is necessary with respect to Thomas’s objection to PSR ¶ 
21 because that objection does not affect sentencing. Consistent with the rules, “for 
any disputed portion of the presentence report” the Court must “rule on the dispute 
or determine that a ruling is unnecessary . . .  because the matter will not affect 
sentencing. . . . ” Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 32(i)(3)(B). The PSR at ¶ 21 conservatively 
accounts for the actual losses Ms. Thomas caused.  
According to her own filing “Thomas accepts responsibility for the loan 
applications she personally submitted.” (Doc. 71, p. 1). Here, Thomas herself 
received $621,152.50 in fraudulent PPP loan proceeds as alleged in counts one 
through seven of the second superseding indictment. (Doc. 48). Consequently, the 
application of a 14-level increase under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(H) for a loss of greater 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 7 of 12

8 
 
than $550,000 but less than $1,500,000 is appropriate based entirely upon Thomas’s 
fraud alone. Nevertheless, for the reasons above, Thomas’s recruiting and assisting 
other people in fraudulently obtaining PPP loans proceeds and inflicting actual losses 
to banks and the government constitutes relevant conduct consistent with USSG § 
1B1.3(a)(1)(A) and is proper for the Court’s consideration.  
While the 17 approved fraudulent PPP loans in this case total $795,158.50 (see 
PSR ¶ 14) in harm, Thomas fraudulently applied for 33 PPP loans on behalf of 
herself and others with a total intended loss of $1,842,068.50. Because USSG § 
2B1.1(b)(1)(H) applies in ¶ 21 entirely because of the PPP loan proceeds Thomas 
alone received, the Court need not rule on Thomas’s third objection. In the event the 
Court identifies a material dispute, the PSR at ¶ 21 conservatively calculates the loss 
amount attributable to Thomas and this objection should be overruled.   
4. Thomas served as an organizer or leader by recruiting at least 10 accomplices, directly 
participating in submitted applications on behalf of 10 or more people, and leading a fraud 
scheme that included numerous loan applications submitted over the course of 12 months.       
 
 
The PSR at ¶ 23 correctly applies the four-level adjustment in USSG § 3B1.1(a) 
because Thomas served as an organizer or leader of five or more people by recruiting 
and assisting 10 or more people in applying for fraudulent PPP loans and ultimately 
controlling the funds granted to each participant by directing the loan proceeds 
through her bank account. In distinguishing an organizer or leader from a role of 
management or supervision, the Court should apply the following factors:  
the exercise of decision making authority, the nature of participation in 
the commission of the offense, the recruitment of accomplices, the 
claimed right to a larger share of the fruits of the crime, the degree of 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 8 of 12

9 
 
participation in planning or organizing the offense, the nature and scope 
of the illegal activity, and the degree of control and authority exercised 
over others. 
 
USSG § 3B1.1, cmt. n.4. In applying these factors, the Tenth Circuit has ruled that a 
defendant may be an organizer without actually exercising control over any other 
person. United States v. Tagore, 158 F.3d 1124, 1131 (10th Cir. 1998) (internal 
citations omitted).    
These factors support the four-level enhancement for Thomas’s role as an 
organizer or leader. As previously described, Thomas actively recruited and assisted 
at least 10 people in preparing fraudulent PPP loan applications by typing them on 
her computer or giving them detailed instructions about how to apply. Disc. pp. 
3019-49.  
As documented in emails to the case agent and in the statements of witnesses and 
co-defendants, Thomas directly participated in preparing numerous individuals 
fraudulent PPP loan applications by typing the applications on her laptop computer, 
usually at Thomas’s home.8 For example, Pepper Jones advised “Aleta Thomas gave 
me info on how to apply for the ppp. . . . I gave her access to my personal info 
willingly. I also gave her permission to have my funds deposited to her personal 
checking account at Tulsa Federal Credit Union.” Disc. p. 3036. Kobe Eubanks also 
stated in an email message “I gave Aleta Thomas my info and permission to deposit 
my ppp funds in her acct. . . .” Id. at 3037.  
 
8 Disc. pp. 3019-49 Aleta Thomas Email Correspondence MOA_Final 04-09-2021.    
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 9 of 12

10 
 
In many instances Thomas also prepared fake tax returns on behalf of herself and 
others she assisted including Katrina West, Marqwesha Davis, Pepper Jones, and 
Jayveon Hudson.9 Thomas’s Facebook Messenger messages also detail active 
recruitment and direct involvement in this fraud scheme.   
In several instances, Thomas also claimed a right to a substantial share of the 
fruits of the crime. For example, on July 5, 2020, Thomas stated to Ms. Yarbrough 
“I can do it I do 30 %” after Yarbrough reported someone else offered to help her in 
exchange for half of the loan. Facebook Search Warrant return pp. 11978-81. Kryen 
Pittman elaborated that in exchange for helping Pittman with his loans, Thomas 
would keep one half of the loan proceeds. Pittman Interview Tr. lns. 538-558. In 
another instance, Kennedy Hudson testified that the loan proceeds from Hudson’s 
first PPP loan were placed in a TFCU account that Hudson and Thomas shared with 
$10,000 remaining in the account after Kennedy Hudson received her first $10,000 
payment. K. Hudson Trans. p. 14-5. From the proceeds of her second PPP loan, 
Hudson transferred $10,000 to Thomas. Id. pp. 18-19. 
Thomas also played a direct role in the planning and organizing the criminal 
activity by drafting loan documents for others and showing them where to apply. For 
example, while in the company of other individual participants, such as Katrina 
West, Danee Thomas, Kyren Pittman, Kennedy Hudson, and Pepper Jones, Thomas 
typed their loan applications on her computer. Without Thomas’s recruitment and 
 
9 Disc. pp. 7698, 7741, 8127, 8165, 7612, 6942, and 7018 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 10 of 12

11 
 
advice, it appears none of these individuals would have known where or how to 
apply for a PPP loan.10  
The nature and scope of Thomas’s illegal activity also supports the application of 
this four-level leader or organizer enhancement. Thomas started fraudulently 
applying for PPP loans in May 2020 and possessed 10 months of knowledge and 
experience when she first recruited and assisted friends and family with their PPP 
loans. As a result, Thomas secured more than $150,000 on behalf of other 
participants in her fraud scheme during a two-month long period of time.  
Even if Thomas did not directly exercise control over the others, she certainly 
exercised control over their money and personal identifiable information. In one 
instance involving Kyren Pittman, Thomas used Mr. Pittman’s information to apply 
for a second loan, unbeknownst to Mr. Pittman. While Thomas clearly controlled 
the money in this case, under the law, Thomas need not actually control the actions 
of others in her fraud scheme.  
Consequently, the Court should overrule Thomas’s objection to the enhancement 
in punishment in the PSR ¶ 23 because she qualifies as an organizer or leader for her 
direct participation requesting PPP loan proceeds on behalf of at least 10 people she 
recruited and aided as a part of her fraud scheme. Additionally, the nature and scope 
of Thomas’s fraud spanned months and included 33 total fraudulent loan 
applications that resulted in approximately $775,000 in loss in taxpayer dollars. 
 
10 West. Tr. pp 7-11; Pittman Tr. lns. 50-192; Hudson Tr. pp. 10-13; Jones Trans. pp. 26-27; 34. 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 11 of 12

12 
 
 
Finally, the PSR at ¶ 29 conservatively calculates Thomas’s Total Offense Level 
of 24 because the PSR correctly applies the obstruction of justice enhancement in ¶ 
16, conservatively calculates the loss amount in ¶ 21, and correctly applies the 
enhancement for Thomas’s role as an organizer or leader of a group of more than 
five people in ¶ 23. For these reasons, the government respectfully requests the Court 
overrule Thomas’s objections to the PSR.      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
CLINTON J. JOHNSON 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
/s/ Kristin F. Harrington 
 
 
 
 
Kristin F. Harrington, OBA No. 21185 
Assistant United States Attorney 
110 West Seventh Street, Suite 300 
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119 
(918) 382-2785 
 
 
Certificate of Service 
 
 
I hereby certify that on the day of May 25, 2022, I served the foregoing document 
via electronic email, on the following: 
 
Keith A. Ward 
Keith@keithwardlaw.com 
Counsel for Ms. Aleta Thomas 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Kristin F. Harrington 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kristin F. Harrington 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF     Document 103 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 05/25/22     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.oknd.57939.103.0.pdf

Size

136,440 bytes

SHA-256

3f40ba5faf02678b9c93aeec1fdfff223d10adcdef99b67b871c1a935604fc39

Our copy

gov.uscourts.oknd.57939.103.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)