Court filing
Transcript of Proceedings (Unredacted) of Sentencing Hearing — USA v. Thomas (Dkt. 123, N.D. Okla.)
Filed July 12, 2022 in Aleta Necole Thomas; one of 52 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-07-12 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma · No. 4:21-cr-00239-GKF · Doc. 123 · 2022-07-12 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
-vs-
) No. 21-CR-239-GKF
)
ALETA NECOLE THOMAS, )
)
Defendant. )
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING HEARING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE GREGORY K. FRIZZELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
JUNE 7, 2022
A P P E A R A N C E S
Kristin F. Harrington and Cymetra Williams, Assistant
U.S. Attorneys, 110 West Seventh Street, Suite 300, Tulsa,
Oklahoma, 74119, attorneys on behalf of the Plaintiff;
Keith A. Ward, Attorney at Law, 1874 South Boulder
Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74119, attorney on behalf of the
Defendant.
REPORTED BY:
BRIAN P. NEIL, RMR-CRR
United States Court Reporter
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 1 of 43
2
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
Tuesday, June 7, 2022
* * * * *
DEPUTY COURT CLERK: This is Case No. 21-CR-239-GKF,
United States of America v. Aleta Necole Thomas. Counsel,
please state your appearances for the record.
MS. HARRINGTON: Kristin Harrington on behalf of the
United States, along with Cymetra Williams and Special Agent
Michael Bernier from the Federal Reserve Board.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. WARD: Good morning, Your Honor. Ms. Thomas
appears with her counsel, Keith Ward.
THE COURT: Good morning. Ms. Thomas, two questions
as we begin: First of all, did you receive a copy of the
revised presentence investigation report dated April 28th in a
timely fashion?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Secondly, have you had a full, fair, and
complete opportunity to review the contents of that report with
Mr. Ward as your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Very well. Counsel, I know there are
objections. I've read the objections and the responses.
Anything to add to those objections?
MS. HARRINGTON: Your Honor, the government has no
objections to the presentence report and would stand on its
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 2 of 43
3
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
written response to the defendant's objections.
THE COURT: Very well. And because it is pertinent
to the court's findings as to the offense level, any arguments
to be made with respect to the government's motion to withdraw
the third point?
MS. HARRINGTON: Yes. May I approach the podium,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: Please.
MS. HARRINGTON: Thank you. Your Honor, the
government respectfully requests to withdraw its motion for a
third point and asks the court to deny Ms. Thomas' acceptance
of responsibility based upon three of her objections to the
PSR; in particular, in paragraphs 14, 21, and 23. These
objections deal most primarily with Aleta Thomas recruiting and
instructing ten close friends and family members. In these
objections, she is denying that she assisted and instructed
those family members and quite contrary to her own e-mail
communications with the case agent, Jason Hartwig, at the time
that her bank with account was frozen.
In those e-mail communications, she identifies by name
ten people who she solicited to apply for fraudulent Paycheck
Protection Program loans. Most notably at Bates stamp
No. 3027, Special Agent Jason Hartwig asks Ms. Thomas, "What
exactly was the nature of your role?" And this Bates stamp
number that I'm referencing is Exhibit 1 to filing docket
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 3 of 43
4
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
No. 108.
And in response to Special Agent Jason Hartwig's
request about Ms. Thomas' role, Ms. Thomas responds, "My role
is I told them about it. I told them how to apply through
Womply. I will have to get everyone to send me a copy of their
application, then I will send it." She goes on in other
communications, most notably at Bates stamp No. 3021, to talk
about how these applications, and the proceeds of these
applications, were routed through her account at Tulsa Federal
Credit Union.
These additional applications of these ten people are
properly considered in the presentence report as relevant
conduct to Counts 3 and 4 of the second superseding indictment,
and her objections directly contradict Ms. Thomas' own
statements to the agent, along with the e-mail communications
of at least six of these ten people, along with numerous Grand
Jury interviews and witness interviews in which her
co-defendants and close friends and family members describe the
process through which they provided Ms. Thomas their names,
their Social Security numbers, their dates of birth, and other
pertinent information in order for Ms. Thomas to type loan
applications on her laptop computer that were then communicated
to the government for the fraudulent Paycheck Protection
Program and many of these loan proceeds were then deposited
into Ms. Thomas' account.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 4 of 43
5
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
THE COURT: Very good. Thank you very much.
Anything to add, Mr. Ward, to the objections or the
motion to respond to the government's motion to withdraw the
third point?
MR. WARD: Yes, Your Honor, just briefly. The
essence of the government's motion would be that Ms. Thomas has
somehow not accepted responsibility or complicated the
sentencing process. And with all due respect, sometimes the
government confuses the actions of the defendant with the
actions of defendant's counsel; that's me. And when I read a
presentence report -- and I have spoken with people, some of
whom are here in the audience today, who deny that Ms. Thomas
organized, managed, or somehow induced them to commit a
criminal offense, then I have a professional obligation to
object to that portion of the presentence report, and that's
what I did on behalf of my client.
There is a sharp factual dispute there because, as I
mentioned, I've spoken personally with some of the people that
the government claims that Ms. Thomas induced to commit a
crime, and they tell me that she didn't do that. So I don't
think that the government should be permitted to withdraw its
motion for a third point simply because defense counsel
challenged the presentence report on a matter where there's a
sharp factual difference.
THE COURT: All right. Now, in the plea agreement,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 5 of 43
6
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
you did agree, and the defendant agreed, to pay -- and let me
get the actual wording here of the plea agreement. This is in
paragraphs 8 and 9 and this has to do with restitution both for
the offense of conviction and restitution for other offenses.
The defendant agreed to pay restitution for the entire
$774,753.50, including the amounts in paragraph 9 which cover
the other applications that we're talking about today.
MR. WARD: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So square that for me, if you would.
MR. WARD: Well, from an historical perspective,
what happened -- and part of what -- the reason I had requested
additional time before this sentencing today is because the
means by which these other people applied for their individual
PPP loans was by a phone app, and the phone app specifically
requires that you have a bank account in which the lender
deposits the money and they didn't. They only had Cash App or
other apps on their phone, didn't have a bank account. So with
Ms. Thomas' permission, she allowed them to send the money to
her account.
Now, going forward what happened was that kind of
coincided with the timing of the government's investigation,
and the government discovered through its investigation that
those people's money, as well as a substantial amount of the
money that Ms. Thomas got on her own, was in her bank account,
and therefore, froze or otherwise seized those funds. Those
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 6 of 43
7
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
seized funds, of course, should be applied against any
restitution. But Ms. Thomas doesn't dispute that the
individuals put the money in her account, and to that extent
she would be responsible for it being returned to the
government. So that's kind of where we're coming from on that.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
MR. WARD: No, sir.
THE COURT: Any reply?
MS. HARRINGTON: Just briefly, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Please.
MS. HARRINGTON: The issue of whether these ten
individuals used a DocuSign application or the permissibility
of the money going into Ms. Thomas' account is not the issue
before the court and which causes the government great concern
here. The issue before the court is Ms. Thomas recruited,
assisted, and instructed, as evidenced by her e-mail messages
and the statements of multiple individuals, how to apply for
fraudulent PPP loans and even created fake tax returns that
were submitted both in support of her own PPP loan and that are
identical and match the tax returns submitted in support of
four other people's PPP loans.
And so the issue isn't necessarily the use of the money
and going into the account, it's Ms. Thomas' actions in
recruiting and instructing the individuals in applying for
fraudulent PPP loans. Thank you.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 7 of 43
8
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. Let me ask here
with regard to the forfeiture money judgment: Those monies
that were in the various accounts in the Tulsa Federal Credit
Union have not yet been applied to restitution; is that
correct?
MS. HARRINGTON: No, they have not.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. HARRINGTON: They are going through the
administration processes of the FBI forfeiture process, banks
are submitting claims, and the federal government is submitting
claims for those monies.
THE COURT: I see. And what's the total amount
there that was seized?
MS. HARRINGTON: May I look at the plea agreement,
Your Honor?
THE COURT: Please.
MS. HARRINGTON: The total amount that was seized,
consistent with page 8 in paragraph 11, it is approximately
$220,000. I don't have that exact number in front of me. In
the discovery, there are checks that have been submitted from
Tulsa Federal Credit Union to the federal government for the
amounts listed in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the forfeiture
paragraph at paragraph 11. So --
THE COURT: That's more like $210,000, I believe,
isn't it?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 8 of 43
9
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
MS. HARRINGTON: Yes. Yes, Your Honor, $210,000.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. HARRINGTON: Uh-huh.
THE COURT: The court has reviewed the defendant's
objections to the presentence investigation report at docket
No. 98. The defendant objects to paragraphs 14, 16, 21, 23,
and 29 as they relate to the defendant's involvement and role
in the instant offense, the enhancement for obstruction of
justice, the losses attributable to the defendant, and the
total offense level computation. The court has also reviewed
the plaintiff's response to the defendant's objection to the
presentence investigation report at docket No. 103.
The defendant objects to paragraph 14 of the
presentence report as it relates to the defendant's involvement
in the instant offense. The defendant argues she did not
instruct anyone to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection
Program loans and that she provided no assistance to the
individuals who voluntarily submitted fraudulent loans.
The defendant further argues that although the
individuals had the loan proceeds deposited into her Tulsa
Federal Credit Union bank account, this was done because the
other individuals did not have their own bank accounts and she
took no consideration or money for allowing this to be done.
This case involved the defendant recruiting other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 9 of 43
10
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
individuals via Facebook Messenger to participate in her
fraudulent PPP loan scheme. Once the individuals were
recruited, the defendant provided detailed instructions and
encouragement to the individuals to guide them through the loan
application process. Despite some individuals possessing bank
accounts, the defendant provided the individuals with her bank
account information so the loan proceeds would be directly
deposited to defendant's Tulsa Federal Credit Union account.
After the loan proceeds were secured, according to credible
witness testimony and defendant's messages on Facebook,
defendant kept some of the proceeds in exchange for her
assistance with the loan application.
Therefore, the court overrules the objection to
paragraph 14.
Defendant objects to paragraphs 16 and 24 of the
presentence report as they relate to the application of the
two-level upward adjustment for obstruction of justice.
Defendant argues she did not obstruct justice by informing
investigators of a Joniayah Harrison, who she alleged helped
her fill out forms and loan applications. Defendant argues
that the investigators' inability to locate Joniayah Harrison
is not proof that she does not exist; it simply means that
investigators were not able to locate her. The defendant
further argues that the presentence investigation report failed
to provide information as to how defendant's statements
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 10 of 43
11
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
"significantly impeded the investigation."
On February 19, 2021, Thomas testified before a Grand
Jury in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Thomas testified
that she knew little about PPP loans and had been guided
through the application process by two women, Joniayah Harrison
and Gail Jackson, who she had met through Facebook. She
further testified that Harrison and Jackson had met her at the
Woodland Hills Mall food court in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to assist
her in filling out the necessary forms and gathering the
required information.
The discovery, which included Thomas' Facebook
Messenger history, contained no conversations with, or mentions
of, Harrison or Jackson. Further, no conversations involving
the logistics of meetings at Woodland Hills Mall were found.
On the contrary, the discovery contains Facebook Messenger and
e-mail conversations wherein Thomas herself provides detailed
instructions and encouragement to other individuals to guide
them through the loan application process.
Therefore, the court finds that Thomas provided false
testimony to the Grand Jury in order to minimize her role in
the instant offenses. Additionally, investigators took steps
to attempt to validate the existence of Joniayah Harrison and
Gail Jackson but were unable to do so which significantly
impeded the investigation. During this investigation, the
defendant continued her fraud scheme and secured additional
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 11 of 43
12
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
funds from fraudulent PPP loans.
Based on this evidence provided by the government, the
court overrules the objection to paragraphs 16 and 24.
Defendant objects to paragraph 21 of the presentence
report as it relates to the losses attributable to the
defendant. Defendant argues she is not responsible for
$774,753.50 worth of losses related to PPP loans made to
various other individuals. As outlined in the second
superseding indictment at docket No. 48, the defendant received
at least $621,152.50 from the fraudulent PPP loan scheme. As
previously stated, the defendant recruited, instructed, and
encouraged other individuals to participate in this the fraud
scheme.
Pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Section
1B1.3(a)(1)(A), the losses accrued by the co-defendants in this
case can be attributed to this defendant as relevant conduct.
Furthermore, the 17 approved fraudulent loans applied for by
defendant and other individuals totaled $795,158.50 in losses.
However, the 33 loans the defendant and other individuals
applied for would have had a total loss of $1,842,068.50, and
whether the total loss was $621,152.50 or $774,753.50, if
losses exceed $550,000, but are less than $1.5 million, a
two-level enhancement is added pursuant to sentencing
guidelines Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). In addition, the parties
entered into a binding plea agreement whereby defendant agreed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 12 of 43
13
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
to pay restitution to the victims of the offense of conviction
in relevant conduct which defendant agreed totaled $774,753.50.
Therefore, the presentence investigation report
properly calculated the specific offense characteristic found
at sentencing guideline Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). Thus, the
defendant's objection to paragraph 21 is overruled.
The defendant objects to paragraph 23 of the
presentence report as it relates to the defendant's role in the
instant offense. The defendant argues she did not organize or
manage other individuals and she single-handedly made her own
PPP loan applications. The defendant further argues that other
individuals committing similar acts by filing fraudulent PPP
loan applications is not evidence of her organizing or managing
the other individuals.
Section 3B1.1(a) provides a four-level upward
adjustment to the offense level if the defendant was an
organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five
or more participants. Those participants must be criminally
responsible but need not be convicted. The court references
Section 3B1.1, and the commentary at note 1.
As previously mentioned, the defendant recruited other
individuals via Facebook Messenger to participate in her
fraudulent PPP loan scheme. Once the individuals were
recruited, the defendant provided detailed instructions and
encouragement to the individuals to guide them through the loan
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 13 of 43
14
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
application process. On occasion, the defendant provided
detailed information to the individuals for filling out the
applications and typed some applications for individuals.
The defendant recruited and assisted her two
co-defendants, Katrina West and Pepper Jones, along with Danee
Thomas, Kyren Pittman, Kennedy Hudson, Marqwesha Davis, and
Jayveon Hudson, among others, in applying for fraudulent PPP
loans and ultimately controlling the funds granted to each
participant by directing the loan proceeds through her bank
account.
Based on this evidence, the court finds that the
presentence investigation report properly calculated the
adjustment for her role in the offense found at sentencing
guideline Section 3B1.1(a) and overrules the objection to
paragraph 23 of the presentence investigation report.
The defendant objects to paragraph 29 -- oh, that's all
right. I've got six kids. It's not going to bother me. You
keep him in here. I've been around it plenty.
Defendant objects to paragraph 29 of the presentence
investigation report as it relates to the defendant's total
offense level. The defendant argues her total offense level
should be a 18, rather than a 24, because the four levels for
an aggravated role and the two levels for obstruction of
justice should not be applied.
For the aforementioned reasons, the defendant's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 14 of 43
15
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
objection to paragraph 29 of the report is overruled.
The government filed a motion to withdraw the motion
for third level of acceptance at docket No. 108.
(Discussion held off the record)
THE COURT: Based upon the foregoing findings as to
the defendant's objections and the government's response, the
government finds that the government's -- or the court finds
that the government's motion shall be granted. Therefore,
paragraphs 28, 29, 48, and 58 of the presentence report --
maybe I was wrong -- therefore, paragraphs 28, 29, 48, and 58
of the presentence investigation report shall be revised. The
total offense level is 25. Combined with a criminal history
category of II, the resulting guideline range is 63 to 78
months. The fine range is $20,000 to $1 million.
With those findings and rulings, the court makes the
following findings with regard to the sentencing guidelines:
The total offense level in this case is a 25 and the
criminal history category is a II. The term of custody under
the statute on Counts 3 and 4 is not more than 30 years per
count; under the guidelines, the term of custody ranges from 63
to 78 months.
The term of supervised release on Counts 3 and 4 is not
more than five years per count; under the guidelines, the term
of supervised release ranges from two to five years. The
defendant is ineligible for probation under both the statute
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 15 of 43
16
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
and the guidelines.
The fine under the statute on Counts 3 and 4 is not
more than $1 million per count; under the guidelines, the fine
ranges from $20,000 to $1 million. Restitution stands in the
amount of $774,753.50. The special monetary assessment under
both the statute and the guidelines is $200.
Other than the objections previously made and ruled on,
are there any objections to those findings or issues with
regard to the presentence report?
MS. HARRINGTON: Not from the government, Your
Honor.
MR. WARD: Well, of course, we object to the court's
findings but not to the court's recitation that it just
provided.
THE COURT: Based upon those rulings?
MR. WARD: Yes.
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MR. WARD: And the court would also note the younger
members of the audience's objections also. I think that's what
they were trying to communicate to the court.
THE COURT: I understand. Maybe so.
Mr. Ward, I'd be pleased to hear any statements that
you have on behalf of the defendant.
MR. WARD: Thank you. And the court hasn't
specifically ruled on the motion for variance yet?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 16 of 43
17
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
THE COURT: No, sir.
MR. WARD: Okay. Let me kind of put it this way.
When you do my job, you see people accused of bad
conduct all the time and this isn't my first PPP loan case.
The clients always have their reasoning, their justification
for what happened, and Ms. Thomas is no different in this
particular case.
However, I think what is extremely difficult from my
perspective is to communicate to the court the type of person
that Ms. Thomas really is. Because the court has seen my
motion for variance, the court has seen the letters attached as
exhibits, the court probably has gotten a picture of who she
might be insofar as she is a person who is absolutely selfless.
What person in the world would adopt six children from
drug-addicted mothers who otherwise have no chance at life?
And it's not just those six kids. She --
THE COURT: Let me ask you a question in that regard
because you raised the topic.
But explain to me why the defendant adopted two of
those children while under federal investigation and then two
additional children, those six, after being indicted federally?
Does that show care and concern for those children?
MR. WARD: Well, I've never discussed that point
with her so I can't really give you the court a direct
response. I can give the court an indirect response, which is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 17 of 43
18
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
that I find the quality of Ms. Thomas is that she simply has no
limits to what she is willing to do for other people. I think
perhaps she might have been in somewhat of a state of denial
that this day would actually come at the time that she made
those adoptions. But I think the short answer for the court is
that she just simply has no limits to the amount that she's
willing to give to other people.
If I can continue?
THE COURT: Of course, sir.
MR. WARD: But it's not just the six kids that she's
adopted. There are other people in the courtroom today who
she's taken under her wing and provided guidance to and
essentially saved their lives. Pastor Green is here today. If
he were to testify to the court, he would tell the court that
he's been Ms. Thomas' pastor for over 20 years, that Ms. Thomas
has always participated in the mission work of the church, she
has provided guidance and spirituality to untold numbers of
underprivileged children's in north Tulsa and elsewhere, she
gives selflessly to the church and its missions, and that she
has always been faithful in her work, in her church work, in
her mission work.
But when you start comparing money to human lives, it
doesn't make for a very good comparison. Because if Ms. Thomas
just saved one of those children's life, gave one of those
children an opportunity to have a meaningful, productive life,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 18 of 43
19
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
what would it be worth in terms of society? You can't put a
dollar on it. And even though there is a loss in this case, a
large loss, that's doubtful Ms. Thomas can ever fully repay in
her lifetime, one would one must wonder what societal good
would come of separating Ms. Thomas from her mission work where
she works with underprivileged children, the lives of her
adoptive children. What are those lives worth?
I simply would suggest to the court that you can't put
a dollar on it and that the best resolution, in my opinion, in
this case would be to give her the longest term of probation
allowable, to give her an extremely high amount of community
service hours, which she does already, which she could easily
provide to the court, and to allow her to continue in her
life's mission of raising these children who are in serious,
serious need of a parent and to continue her mission work that
she does in her church.
THE COURT: Thank you, sir. Ms. Thomas, I'd be
pleased to hear any statements that you might have on your own
behalf.
MR. WARD: Just stand there at the microphone.
THE COURT: Good morning.
THE DEFENDANT: Your Honor, I read over the
information that my attorney had given me about the reports and
the variances and different responses, and I would have never
-- I would never do anything intentionally to separate me from
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 19 of 43
20
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
my kids or my grandmother or my grandma who's 81. I've been
taking care of them myself.
Your Honor, all I've done -- I did the Womply loan
myself. I copied it off of the Internet. I never, ever
instructed anybody, never -- and these people here in this
audience are some of the people and they wrote statements
saying that I did not do this. I gave my attorney a packet and
it's all the stuff in there about the Womply loan where you
cannot even do it on a computer. The prosecution keeps saying
that I sat in front of a computer and did this on a laptop and
I did not. Everyone has to use their own device because it's a
Fast Lane loan.
I did get duped at the mall and he said basically that
I was stupid for giving my information to somebody, but I
didn't feel like I was being misled because you give your
information out all the time online and you give it out on the
phone. I met this lady and I needed help because people in my
community that were working for me were working for me for free
because they were losing their other jobs and people that had
jobs needed their kids watched and I've done this since 1998
when my nephew was born.
You could ask anybody in this audience, I have never
taken nothing from nobody. I would never do the thing that it
says that I need to go to jail because people don't know about
what happened. It was on the news. My character has been
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 20 of 43
21
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
defamed. I sit on the board of my church. I'm a Pathfinder
director at my church. I'm a master guide at the highest level
in Pathfinder that you can be. My daughter is in the
Pathfinder club and my great niece and nephew and I've had to
sit and explain to them why I'm going to court. That is so --
no money is worth your character and that's all I have. And
all these young people -- all these young people in this
audience, they know that I teach them the right way to go,
including my niece, Danee Thomas, and I would never, ever
instruct her to do anything wrong because I've always taught
her to do the right thing. I've never told none of these kids
to do nothing bad. And I say "kids" because they're young
people.
In the prosecution thing, it said that I have numerous
nieces and nephews to take care of my kids and my grandmother.
I do not. I have one adult niece, Danee Thomas, and my niece
Ashley. She just graduated high school. There is no one to
take care of them.
I accept responsibility and I accept responsibility for
what I did as far as the Womply loan, Your Honor, because I did
do that loan myself. I did look on YouTube and do it. I have
proof that you can only do it on a phone. You can only do it
on a phone because it's a Fast Lane loan. It's nothing -- it's
like you answer the questions if you're a gig worker. And why
in the world if I have all this money that I've been -- I've
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 21 of 43
22
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
been harassed. My house got broke into because people thought
I had all this money that the paper is saying. My grandmother
and them couldn't go out for a long time because they're scared
because people were calling me saying, let me get some money,
let me borrow money, do you got this, do you got that?
And Jayveon Hudson, he is here in the court today. His
attorney when they went -- when this whole thing started up, it
started in a lie because these people were subpoenaed to court
as targets, and when they got to the thing to testify -- go
talk, they were witnesses against me.
And then I was -- I brought Jayveon Hudson to the
court, I brought him. I'm the one who turned in the names to
the government. I told him these names because these people
were gig workers because they worked for me at my day care
doing different stuff, lawns, they were cooks, they were
watching kids and all that. That's what that loan was for, gig
workers, contract workers. It's a big list of what it is.
I did not instruct them. I only told them, hey, you
can get -- you need to apply at Womply. That's it. I did not
do anything on a laptop. I can show you the paperwork where it
says you have to use your own device because you have to have
your own facial recognition. You have to use your ID. You
have to have your e-mail. You have to use your phone number.
The reason I know, yes, that's what I thought I was
pleading guilty to, two false statements, because the loan is
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 22 of 43
23
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
two loans, it's two draws. That's what I thought I was
pleading guilty to, not all this money. Because when I -- the
other money I was told that I was going to get loan forgiveness
when she came back and she never came back so I'm stuck with
this big old bill.
THE COURT: You say "she." Which --
THE DEFENDANT: Joniayah Harrison. She told me, she
said, "You're going to get the loan forgiveness. Once this is
done, I'm going to come back and I'm going to get with you and
I'm going to help you do the forgiveness." There's no way I
would have done this. I -- I had all this money --
MR. WARD: Okay. Listen to me for just a second.
(Discussion held off the record)
THE DEFENDANT: I need everybody to know it. I did
not do anything intentional and I would never do anything to
these young people. I would never do nothing to them that
would make them do something illegal. That's why I have them
here today because in the deal it says that I need to go to
jail because I've been a bad example to young people. That is
my plight. That is my mission to -- I've done youth
ministries.
My nephew was killed in 2019 in Owasso and I would
never do anything to make a young person fall. As God as my
witness, I would not. I would never do anything to take -- I'm
so sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Because in the report it
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 23 of 43
24
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
says that I'm not sorry but I am sorry. And that's why I have
these young people here today to let them know you have to do
things the right way all the way.
I'm sorry, Your Honor, for anything that I've done
that's brought shame upon God, number one, upon my family, my
grandma who raised me from a little kid -- I would never do
anything to shame her -- to my children that I stand before
every day and try to teach them the right way, and to my church
and my community. I would never do anything like that.
And I am sorry for what I did. I am sorry for what --
I welcomed these people into my home when they came. When
Jason Hartwig came to my home, this Jason guy that came in, the
FBI agents that came in, I never did say, no, you can't come in
because I could have but I had nothing to hide. Every time
they came I was in the middle of day-care every time, every
time. And they keep saying I don't have a day care and I did
and the owner of the home sent all the stuff in. Everything
they asked of me I gave it to them, and they said I didn't send
in the reports as far as the Jason Hartwig said I didn't send
in the stuff -- the information for the day care. I did. As
soon as he asked for it, I e-mailed it and I have proof of that
too. I printed everything out. And I have all the statements
of the people saying that I did not do this to them. Saying
that I have mind control, I don't. How can you have mind
control of somebody who's an adult?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 24 of 43
25
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
THE COURT: I don't know that they're saying that
you didn't have a day care but rather you didn't have 45
employees.
THE DEFENDANT: I didn't.
THE COURT: All right.
THE DEFENDANT: I didn't have 45 employees.
THE COURT: Correct.
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
THE COURT: The application said you did.
THE DEFENDANT: I did not do it. I gave my
information to her.
THE COURT: You didn't make the application?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir. I just met her and she
said, "I will handle it." And I said, "Okay."
THE COURT: All right. Anything further?
THE DEFENDANT: Can I sit down?
THE COURT: Yes, please.
MS. HARRINGTON: Thank you.
THE COURT: What says the government?
MS. HARRINGTON: Thank you, Your Honor. On behalf
of the government, the government respectfully urges the court
to sentence Ms. Thomas to a period of incarceration while the
government appreciates the display of emotion and the remorse
here today, the government cannot disregard the facts of the
underlying investigation related to this case. Ms. Thomas
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 25 of 43
26
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
maintained she was in a state of denial about being caught and
discovered in her loans and that she was duped by two women at
Woodland Hills Mall in May and June of 2022. That overlooks
the fact that Ms. Thomas was interviewed in November of 2020
and informed at that time she was under investigation for
Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud. She, again, was served
a Grand Jury subpoena in February of 2021, testified after
being advised of her rights pursuant to a target letter, and
then five days later agents re-reminded her that she was under
investigation. All the while, Ms. Thomas continued to violate
the law and continued to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection
Program loan applications both on behalf of her own business,
which allegedly these two women, Joniayah Harrison and Gail
Jackson, had aided her in applying for a loan on behalf of her
day dare in 2020, and then using the exact same loan documents
submitted a subsequent loan to Arvest Bank in May of -- excuse
me -- April 1st of 2021 knowing she was under investigation for
Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud in conjunction with that
very loan.
The government is deeply concerned about her role as a
pillar of her church, as a matriarch in her community, and the
influence she exhibits over young people and her co-defendants
in this case as evidenced by the numerous loan applications
that were submitted in this case and by the numerous statements
by individuals stating that Ms. Thomas instructed them and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 26 of 43
27
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
recruited them in submitting their loan applications.
Concerning this argument about Ms. Thomas being duped,
I think it's well worth noting that the Facebook Messenger
messages of Ms. Thomas and people, such as Heather Overstreet
ShaRita Yarbrough from April 29th of 2020 and July 5th, 2020,
indicate that Ms. Thomas was, in fact, well aware of the
details of both the Paycheck Protection Program loan offered by
the Small Business Administration as well as the Economic
Impact Disaster loan, or the EIDL loan, and her detailed
knowledge of these two loans belie the fact that she now
maintains that she was duped by Harrison and Jackson.
Ms. Thomas maintains that she was simply trying to
assist gig workers, and in every instance she applied for the
maximum amount, $100,000 or $20,833, on behalf of these alleged
gig workers. That means each one of these day-care workers
lawn care workers, maintenance workers made a hundred-thousand
dollars per year. Nevertheless, in at least four instances,
the 2019 1040 Schedule Cs for both Ms. Thomas and for other
individuals reflect the exact same expenses. They are
substantially the same in every material respect.
While Ms. Thomas has certainly provided some care to
family members, to community members, and do good works, those
good works do not undo the fact that she unlawfully obtained
money she was not eligible to receive and she should pay the
price, which is a term of imprisonment. This term of
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 27 of 43
28
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
imprisonment is necessary in order to show a wide range of
young community members that it is not societally acceptable to
steal from banks and the government, as well as to ensure that
her sentence is consistent with other Paycheck Protection
Program defendants who have been sentenced in this district.
As I describe in my response motion to Ms. Thomas'
motion for variance, there are other mothers of young children
who have obtained far fewer loans and far less money than
Ms. Thomas. The instance that is at the forefront of my mind
is Teosha Etuk. She played a very minor role in the case
involving Ibanga Etuk and only obtained approximately $150,000,
and last year Judge Eagan sentenced Ms. Etuk to a year and a
day for her Paycheck Protection Program fraud.
THE COURT: How much?
MS. HARRINGTON: How much?
THE COURT: Yeah. How much was involved?
MS. HARRINGTON: That was $150,000 of actual loss
involving Teosha Etuk.
There's the instance of Benjamin Hayford. He was the
first Paycheck Protection Program loan fraud case prosecuted in
this district. He applied for $4.4 million worth of Paycheck
Protection Program loan money and obtained $165,000.
Mr. Hayford, who was an executive for Walmart, was sentenced to
two years of imprisonment.
Just recently Olusola Ojo, who received just $150,000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 28 of 43
29
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
and applied for approximately seven loans, was sentenced to
four years for his role in a Paycheck Protection Program bank
fraud scheme.
Ms. Thomas, like many of these individuals, has done
good work in the community. She's a faithful member of her
church. Nevertheless, those factors do not undo the economic
harm that she has caused by defrauding banks and the federal
government of Paycheck Protection Program loan funds. Thank
you.
THE COURT: Two questions.
MS. HARRINGTON: Yes.
THE COURT: Ms. Thomas makes much of -- and this is
something of a new issue being brought to the court in her
statement -- that one cannot make an application by computer,
one had to make it by phone. What should the court make of
that arguments?
MS. HARRINGTON: That argument is immaterial, Your
Honor. The statements of the individuals in their e-mails
state specifically that Ms. Thomas instructed and recruited
them to apply for the loans. Whether they were merely using an
app to sign the document, the actual loan documents, or whether
it was prepared by Ms. Thomas, as many of the individuals
stated in front of the Grand Jury and in witness statements to
federal law enforcement and then subsequently signed them, that
distinction is immaterial. Because at the end of the day, it's
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 29 of 43
30
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
Ms. Thomas who caused people to apply for loans that probably
never would have sought out these Paycheck Protection Program
loans but for Ms. Thomas introducing them to this fraud scheme.
THE COURT: Second question. This relates to
Ms. Thomas' motion for sentencing variance, docket No. 97, at
page 15, wherein the defendant states that when her PPP loans
were funded, she gave the following amounts to various
individuals -- 13 individuals are set forth -- as compensation
for their past and future services.
First question: Were these people given money from the
loans that were -- the two loans referenced in Counts 3 and 4,
the monies that she applied for and pled guilty to?
MS. HARRINGTON: May I have just a second to get two
additional documents that will aid me in answering this
question?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. HARRINGTON: Thank you. Is there anything else,
Your Honor, in terms of the numbers and the amounts given that
are described in --
THE COURT: I'm just curious. Because I've added up
in my head these 13 people amount to somewhere between 265 and
270 thousand dollars. my question is, first of all, were these
funded out of the monies that she -- there is no issue that she
applied for?
And then secondly, I'm curious, Danee Thomas received
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 30 of 43
31
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
$32,700; Jayveon Hudson, who's been described to me as a young
man with a learning disability, ADHD, and major health
problems, given $26,500. Were these from applications that
they made or were these funded from the monies that she
received?
MS. HARRINGTON: Your Honor, I don't have the answer
to those questions. We have looked at Ms. Thomas' Tulsa
Federal Credit Union account in-depth. There were cash
withdrawals to the range of $224,000 and transfers in the
amount of $201,000 that are not readily traceable or
identifiable. We also looked at Ms. Thomas' Cash App
transactions. For instance, on Danee Thomas, there were
approximately $6,988 worth of Cash App transactions between
Ms. Thomas and Danee Thomas. These amounts are round dollars
amounts.
The government has requested from Ms. Thomas in the
form of a Grand Jury subpoena that was served on her on April
the 24th of 2021 for records or information about how she paid
her alleged employees and contractors and so on and so forth.
Ms. Thomas did not provide records at all in response to that
specific question, and so there's no way of the government
being able to trace these individual amounts given to her Cash
App transactions or to her Tulsa Federal Credit Union account.
As well as many of the people listed here; for instance, May
Bruner, Demetrius Harrison, Amari Hudson, Asia last name
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 31 of 43
32
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
unknown, and Amara Thomas, these are not people who applied for
Paycheck Protection Program plans to the government's
knowledge.
THE COURT: Amara Thomas is eleven years old. I
take it that -- so, in other words, these amounts are amounts
that the defendant is representing to the court that the
defendant paid to these individuals presumably for work
performed at the day care center --
MS. HARRINGTON: Yes.
THE COURT: -- is that correct?
All right. And 265 to 270 thousand dollars?
MS. HARRINGTON: I calculated it at $269,300.
THE COURT: Wasn't far off.
MS. HARRINGTON: There you go.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else?
MS. HARRINGTON: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. And I saw counsel springing
to his feet. Any rejoinder?
MR. WARD: Let me address that for just a second.
The amounts the court was speaking about there, those
were cash withdrawals that she gave to these people in cash. I
asked her for her record and her record was a handwritten
record that she kept because that's what she intended to use
for loan forgiveness.
Now, I don't want to go back into the commission of the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 32 of 43
33
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
offense, because we pled guilty to it and the court's found us
guilty of that, but that's why she did it because she
understood to get forgiveness, you've got to pay the money out
to people. That's why she gave the money to these people, but
those were cash withdrawals that she gave to people in cash.
Now, if I could just wind up by going back to the
motion for variance. As I mentioned in my opening remarks,
regardless of what the court does, it's unlikely that she'll be
able to repay all the money in her lifetime.
Where the government and I kind of part company, in
terms of the motion for variance, is that the government
doesn't suggest anything that's going to make society a better
society or a better community or make these children have
better lives. The government completely ignores the collateral
consequences of a sentence of imprisonment to Ms. Thomas.
And interestingly in my research, when I was doing some
research, I noticed that the Compassionate Care Act is no
longer the Compassionate Care Act. It's been subsumed by
Section 3553(a), and the court postjudgment can rely on 3553(a)
to grant compassionate release to people. The courts can also
use 3553(a) to grant probation to people that the court feels
like should have probation.
If there were not such catastrophic collateral
consequences to a sentence of imprisonment, I wouldn't argue so
hard about it. But Ms. Thomas undoubtedly -- undoubtedly --
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 33 of 43
34
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
has made society better because of her efforts and will
continue to make society better with her efforts regardless of
what sentence the court imposes. But the notion of taking her
out of the community where she's doing the most good is just
simply a punishment that I don't believe should be inflicted.
THE COURT: Thank you very much. Any further
statement?
MS. HARRINGTON: Nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT: We'll be in recess for ten or fifteen
minutes and we'll return after the recess.
(Short recess)
THE COURT: The court has received and reviewed the
numerous letters outlined in the defendant's motion for
downward variance at docket No. 97. And are there any victims'
representatives who wish to be heard today?
MS. HARRINGTON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The defendant's pleas of guilty to
Counts 3 and 4 of the second superseding indictment were made
pursuant to a written plea agreement at docket No. 78.
Pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the parties agreed that the appropriate disposition
in this case is a sentence of not greater than 48 months
imprisonment.
Based on the factors listed in the plea agreement and a
review of the presentence investigation report, the court finds
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 34 of 43
35
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
that the stipulation agreed to by the parties is reasonable and
does not undermine the statutory purposes of sentencing.
Therefore, the court formally accepts the plea
agreement as written and will depart downward eight levels,
pursuant to sentencing guideline Section 5K2.0(d)(4), and the
comment at note 5, to a total offense level of 17. Combined
with a criminal history category of II, the resulting departure
guideline range is 27 to 33 months.
The court has received and reviewed the defendant's
motion for downward variance at docket No. 97 requesting that
the court vary downward and sentence the defendant to a term of
probation based on her physical health and her family
responsibilities. However, the defendant is statutorily
ineligible for a sentence of probation as the counts of
conviction are class B felonies. Therefore, the court will
construe this request as a zero-month custody request.
The court has also received and reviewed the
plaintiff's response in opposition to the defendant's motion
for downward variance at docket No. 101 and requesting that the
court deny the defendant's motion for downward variance at
docket No. 97 and sentence the defendant to 48 months
imprisonment in accordance with the plea agreement. The
plaintiff contends that a sentence of probation will not
adequately deter this defendant nor would it reflect the
seriousness of the instant offenses. The plaintiff further
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 35 of 43
36
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
contends that a probationary sentence would create unwarranted
sentencing disparities among defendants charged with similar
criminal activity.
The court recognizes that the sentencing guidelines are
advisory and are not mandatory but has considered the
guidelines, along with all of the factors set forth in Title 18
United States Code Section 3553(a), to reach an appropriate and
reasonable sentence in this case. In determining a sentence,
the court has considered the nature of the offense, the
defendant's criminal history, and her personal characteristics.
This case involved the defendant recruiting and
instructing her co-defendants/acquaintances, Pepper Jones and
Katrina West, and eight other individuals, to submit 33
fraudulent PPP loan applications on behalf of businesses, both
real and fictitious, to various banks and lenders.
Based on these factors, a sentence within the variance
guideline range will serve as an adequate deterrent to this
defendant, as well as others, promote respect for the law,
provide just punishment for the offense, and provide protection
for the public. Sentencing disparities among defendants were
considered in determining an appropriate sentence in this case.
A term of supervised release is required with special
conditions, based upon the aforementioned factors, and will
allow the defendant time to reintegrate into the community upon
her release from imprisonment and be monitored for future law
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 36 of 43
37
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
violations. And restitution is mandatory.
Ms. Thomas, if you'll rise, please. In accordance with
applicable law, the court hereby imposes the following
sentence:
It is the order and judgment of this court that the
defendant, Aleta Necole Thomas, is hereby committed to the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a term of
30 months as to each of Counts 3 and 4. Said counts shall run
concurrently, each with the other.
The court orders that the order for entry of forfeiture
money judgment at docket No. 89 is hereby incorporated by
reference.
The defendant shall pay restitution in the total amount
of $774,753.50 to the victims and in the amounts as listed in
paragraph 59 of the presentence report.
And you may be seated.
Based upon the defendant's financial profile, as
outlined in the presentence report, and the mandatory
restitution, the court finds that the defendant does not have
the ability to pay a fine, in addition to restitution, and
therefore, no fine will be imposed. Any monetary penalty is
due in full immediately but is payable on a schedule to be
determined -- any monetary penalty is due in full immediately
-- any monetary penalty is due in full immediately but is
payable on a schedule to be determined pursuant to the policy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 37 of 43
38
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
provisions of the federal Bureau of Prisons' inmate financial
responsibility program while imprisoned, if the defendant
voluntarily participates in that program. If a monetary
balance remains, payment is to commence no later than 60 days
following release from imprisonment to a term of supervised
release in equal monthly payments of $500, or 10 percent of net
income, whichever is greater, over the duration of the term of
supervised release and thereafter as prescribed by law for as
long as some debt remains. Notwithstanding establishment of a
payment schedule, nothing shall prohibit the United States from
executing or levying upon property of the defendant discovered
before or after the date of this judgment. And interest on the
restitution shall accrue.
Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be
placed on a term of supervised release for a period of five
years as to each of Counts 3 and 4. Said terms shall run
concurrently, each with the other. Should the terms of
supervised release be revoked, additional terms of imprisonment
of up to three years per count could be imposed at each
revocation.
Immediately upon release from confinement, but in no
event later than 72 hours thereafter, the defendant must report
in person to the probation office in the district where she is
authorized to reside. While on supervised release, the
defendant must not commit another federal, state, or local
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 38 of 43
39
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
crime. The defendant must not own, possess, or have access to
a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or other dangerous
weapon.
The defendant must, at the direction of the U.S.
probation officer, cooperate with and submit to the collection
of a DNA sample for submission to the combined DNA index
system. Further, the defendant must not possess a controlled
substance and must refrain from any unlawful use of a
controlled substance. The defendant must comply with the
standard conditions that have been adopted by this court and
must comply with the following additional special conditions:
Number one, the special search and seizure condition;
number two, the special mental health condition, number three,
the special financial conditions.
Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section
3563(a)(5), the requirement for mandatory drug testing is
suspended based on the court's determination that the defendant
poses a low risk of drug abuse. However, the probation office
retains the authority to administer such tests for cause as
permitted by the standard conditions of supervision.
It's further ordered that a $100 special monetary
assessment per count for a total of $200 be paid immediately to
the U.S. Court Clerk for the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Mr. Ward, I know you're aware of your obligation to
consult with the defendant regarding the advantages and
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 39 of 43
40
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
disadvantages of perfecting an appeal and making a reasonable
effort to ascertain whether she desires to perfect an appeal.
In order that the record is clear that you've complied with
those obligations, I'm directing you to file within 14 days of
the date the judgment is filed either a notice of appeal or an
affidavit signed by you and Ms. Thomas advising the court that
you've consulted with her and that she's advised you that she
does not wish to perfect an appeal. Very well?
MR. WARD: Yes, sir. Can I address the court for
just a moment?
THE COURT: You may, sir.
MR. WARD: Judgment and Sentence having been
pronounced by the court, I would request that the court
make a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons that she
be placed in a facility as close as possible to Tulsa,
Oklahoma.
THE COURT: Of course.
MR. WARD: And I would also make a request that the
court allow her a voluntary report date.
THE COURT: There's no question about that.
MR. WARD: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. The government should move
to dismiss Counts 1, 2, and 5 through 17 of the second
superseding indictment, as well as the indictment and the
superseding indictment as to Ms. Thomas.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 40 of 43
41
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
MS. HARRINGTON: Yes, Your Honor. At this time the
government would move to dismiss the indictment and superseding
indictment as to Ms. Thomas, as well as all remaining counts,
except for Counts 3 and 4 of the second superseding indictment.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Very well. The indictment and
superseding indictment, as well as Counts 1, 2, and 5 through
17 of the second superseding indictment are dismissed as to
Ms. Thomas only.
The court finds that the defendant is a suitable
candidate for voluntary surrender. I take it there's no
objection there?
MS. HARRINGTON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Therefore, the defendant shall
surrender to the designated facility before 2:00 p.m. on
January 20th, 2022, which is a Wednesday. Is there anything
further?
MS. HARRINGTON: No, Your Honor.
MR. WARD: I didn't get that date.
(Discussion held off the record)
THE COURT: Oh, did I say January? Sorry. The J
months. July, July 20th, 2022.
All right. Anything further, Mr. Ward?
MR. WARD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything from the government?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 41 of 43
42
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
MS. HARRINGTON: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Very well. We are adjourned.
(The proceedings were concluded)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 42 of 43
43
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
U.S. District Court - NDOK
C E R T I F I C A T E
I, Brian P. Neil, a Certified Court Reporter for the
Northern District of Oklahoma, do hereby certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate transcription of my
stenographic notes and is a true record of the proceedings held
in above-captioned case.
I further certify that I am not employed by or related
to any party to this action by blood or marriage and that I am
in no way interested in the outcome of this matter.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this
12th day of July 2022.
s/ Brian P. Neil
_________________________________
Brian P. Neil, RMR-CRR
United States Court Reporter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 4:21-cr-00239-GKF Document 123 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 07/12/22 Page 43 of 43File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.oknd.57939.123.0.pdf
- Size
- 308,694 bytes
- SHA-256
- ac6cf013f3a64aff8332b0b50c9d72411e228b011e91fea680e81a4b30908a2d
- Original
- PACER (login required)