Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Thomas et al — Amanda Christian filings, N.D. Ga., Atlanta TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Darrell Thomas, Andre Lee Gaines, Kahlil Gibran Green,……

Court filing

TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings as to Darrell Thomas, Andre Lee Gaines, Kahlil Gibran Green,… — USA v. Thomas et al (Dkt. 896)

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Filed2024-02-02

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 896 · 2024-02-02 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A transcript of the October 5, 2021 sentencing of Andre Lee Gaines before District Judge J.P. Boulee of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, captioned under 1:20-cr-00296-JPB and 1:21-cr-00206-JPB and filed February 2, 2024 as Document 896. The court notes that Gaines pled guilty on June 17, 2021 to Count 1 of the information for a false, fictitious and fraudulent statement to a department or agency of the United States. It adopts the presentence report, with a total offense level of 12, Criminal History Category of I and a range of 10 to 16 months, and raises on its own motion a departure under 5H1.11 for his 20 years of Navy service. Defense counsel Brian Mendelsohn seeks departures under 5H1.1, 1.3, 1.4 and 5K2.20 and asks the court to vary down to probation. Nathan Kitchens and Tal Cohen Chaiken appear for the government.

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

Full text

THE FOLLOWING IS THE PDF OF AN OFFICIAL 
TRANSCRIPT.  OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS MAY ONLY BE FILED IN CM/ECF 
BY THE OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER AND WILL BE RESTRICTED IN 
CM/ECF FOR A PERIOD OF 90 DAYS.  YOU MAY CITE TO A PORTION 
OF THE ATTACHED TRANSCRIPT BY THE DOCKET ENTRY NUMBER, 
REFERENCING PAGE AND LINE NUMBER, ONLY AFTER THE COURT 
REPORTER HAS FILED THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT; HOWEVER, YOU ARE 
PROHIBITED FROM ATTACHING A FULL OR PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT TO ANY 
DOCUMENT FILED WITH THE COURT. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 1 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
1
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
)
-VS-
) DOCKET NO. 1:20-CR-00296-JPB
)
   1:21-CR-00206-JPB
ANDRE LEE GAINES,
)
)
DEFENDANT.
)
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE J.P. BOULEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
OCTOBER 5, 2021
APPEARANCES:
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT: 
TAL COHEN CHAIKEN, ESQ.
NATHAN KITCHENS, ESQ.
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT:
BRIAN MENDELSOHN, ESQ.
STENOGRAPHICALLY RECORDED BY:  
PENNY PRITTY COUDRIET, RMR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 2 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
2
COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK:  This is case 21-CR-206, 
USA v. Gaines. 
MR. KITCHENS:  Good afternoon, your Honor.  Nathan 
Kitchens on behalf of the government.  I'm here with my 
colleague AUSA Tal Chaiken, as well as Special Agents Joe 
Stites and Stefan Bublitz. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Good afternoon, Judge.  Brian 
Mendelsohn here with Mr. Gaines. 
THE COURT:  Good to see you, Mr. Mendelsohn.  
And good afternoon to you as well, Mr. Gaines. 
OFFICER RIDLEY:  Maria Ridley on behalf of the United 
States Probation Office. 
THE COURT:  Good to see you, Officer.  
Mr. Gaines pled guilty on June 17th, 2021, to Count 1 
of the information for false, fictitious and fraudulent 
statement and representation to a department or agency of the 
United States.  
In accordance with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure, the United States Probation Office has 
conducted a presentence investigation and prepared a 
presentence report, a copy of which has been provided to both 
the government and the defense.  
Mr. Mendelsohn, have you and your client had an 
opportunity to read and discuss the presentence report?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Yes, we have. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 3 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
3
THE COURT:  Do you have any questions about the 
presentence report or any amendments now other than what's 
been previously filed?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  No, Judge. 
THE COURT:  It appears from the record that there are 
no objections to the findings of fact or conclusions of law in 
the presentence report by the government or the defense.  
Is that correct?  
MR. KITCHENS:  That's correct, your Honor. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Yes, that's correct. 
THE COURT:  And I understand, Mr. Mendelsohn, that 
you are seeking a downward departure on various grounds, 
correct?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That's correct, Judge.  I mean,  
it's -- I've asked for a downward departure and a downward 
variance.  They're overlapping, so I think they -- they're one 
and the same in many ways. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Sometimes when they're not really 
overlapping, I will handle the departure requests first and 
hear argument from both of you on that and then move on.  
Other times when they are overlapping, it's my preference to 
just hear argument on everything at once, whether it's a 
departure or a variance or just general 3553(a) factors.  
Is anyone opposed to just hearing argument on all of 
that later in this proceeding?  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 4 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
4
MR. KITCHENS:  No, your Honor. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That's fine.  
THE COURT:  I would like to do this at least.  I want 
to go over which grounds for departure you're seeking so I can 
just make sure that the record's clear on that.  
And I wanted to note one additional ground that the 
Court is considering, I guess, on its own motion, and that is 
5H1.11, which is military, civic, charitable or public 
service, employment-related contributions, record of prior 
good works to consider based on his 20 years of service to the 
Navy and his honorable discharge, a downward departure based 
on 5H1.11.  And I'll be happy to hear from counsel from either 
side about the propriety of such departure when you make your 
arguments as to sentencing.  
Other than that, Mr. Mendelsohn, it looked like 
5H1.1, 1.3, 1.4 for starters, is that correct?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That's correct. 
THE COURT:  And in addition -- 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  5K2.20. 
THE COURT:  5K2.20?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  And I think that was it.  Are there any 
others?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That's it. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  All right.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 5 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
5
I will, therefore, adopt the findings of fact and 
conclusions of law in the presentence report with the 
understanding that I will consider the departure requests 
later in this proceeding.  
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
the guideline calculations are as follows:  
Base offense level of 6;
Adjusted offense level of 14;
Total offense level of 12;
Criminal History Category of I;
Recommended sentencing range not more than five years 
imprisonment, $250,000 fine or twice the gain or twice the 
loss, whichever is greater; 
Then fine guideline range of 5,500 to 55,000; 
Term of supervised release of one to three years; 
Special assessment of $100.  
But I also had it as 10 to 16 months. 
MR. KITCHENS:  That's correct, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Agree, Mr. Mendelsohn?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Yes.  That's correct. 
THE COURT:  So no objections to the guideline 
calculations as stated by the Court?  
MR. KITCHENS:  No objections, your Honor. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Yes, no objections.
THE COURT:  All right.  I may have some questions -- 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 6 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
6
specific questions for you later, but let me go ahead and hear 
from counsel in a moment.  Before I do, I want to let you know 
that I've reviewed the presentence report as well as the 
defense's sentencing memorandum.  
Are there any victims that wish to be heard in this 
proceeding?  
MR. KITCHENS:  No, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Any witnesses on behalf of the defendant?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  No, Judge. 
THE COURT:  Any other documents or letters for the 
Court?  
MR. KITCHENS:  No, your Honor. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  No. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Mendelsohn, would you like to make 
any argument on behalf of your client regarding sentencing?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Certainly. 
THE COURT:  Go ahead. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Judge, I believe I've laid out most 
of the arguments in the sentencing memo.  
You know, it's kind of like the old days where we 
used to talk about downward departures.  I haven't had to do 
that in awhile since these grounds are generally taken up by 
the downward variance grounds.  
But, you know, on the departure issues, the 
Commission and the Supreme Court talked about cases that are 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 7 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
7
outside the heartland in order to qualify for the downward 
departure.  So if it's a heartland case, it's really not a 
ground for a downward departure, but the unusual cases, the 
one's that are outside the heartland, are the ones that do 
qualify.  
And, you know, the factors identified, the age, 
mental condition, physical health as well as the aberrant 
behavior are what they used to refer to as encouraged factors 
under the guidelines.  So they identified these grounds as 
downward departures and encouraged them in certain situations 
where you have a defendant outside of the heartland in an 
extraordinary situation.  
I think Mr. Gaines, given his medical conditions,  
his age and his physical conditions certainly is someone who 
is outside the heartland.  He is very much atypical of the 
defendants that the Court sees in any of these cases.  
I counted up I think it was 17 different physical 
ailments and 19 different medications.  And, you know, the 
physical ailments are serious.  He's had a number of strokes 
predating the incidents here in this case.  Those strokes have 
affected his cognitive ability pretty substantially.  I mean, 
he went from somebody who was able to successfully and 
honorably serve for 21 years in the military to somebody whose 
IQ on the IQ testing is now between the second and the eighth 
percentile.  And I think that's a really significant drop.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 8 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
8
Plus you add the cognitive difficulties associated 
with his executive functioning problems, his ability to reason 
and make those higher-level kinds of decisions and thinking.  
So, again, that's another extraordinary step.  
And then when you factor in his age, at 67 he would 
be in the oldest couple percent of a prison population.  And 
certainly with his medical issues and his physical issues, the 
cost of incarceration for him would be extraordinary, 
substantially higher than a normal inmate.  
So as the guidelines talk about looking for 
alternate -- or less costly alternatives to incarceration, 
certainly a term of probation would be a less costly term -- 
alternative to incarceration.  
So when you -- and I think when we're talking about 
the downward departure grounds, age, physical condition and 
mental condition, they sort of refer to each other where they 
say it's one thing if you're elderly, but if you're elderly 
and infirm, then you're really in the position to qualify for 
this.  And I think Mr. Gaines certainly meets those 
definitions.  
As to the issue of aberrant behavior under 5K2.20, I 
think his record really speaks for itself.  Twenty-one years 
of honorable service in the Navy, his successful career at the 
post office, going 67 years without having even an arrest 
certainly shows that this is some behavior that is far outside 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 9 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
9
the norm for him.  
Certainly I think the -- his cognitive deficits got 
him into this mess and contributed to his involvement in this 
situation.  And so it is certainly aberrant and it's rolled up 
into the other deficits that he has.  
So for all of those grounds I think he would qualify 
for a downward departure.  Certainly there are also grounds 
for a downward variance under 3553 taking into account his 
history and characteristics and the circumstances of the 
offense.  
And, you know, the Court did bring up his honorable 
service, his military civic record.  Certainly 20 years of 
honorable service would qualify under the guidelines.  And I 
would -- I kind of feel bad that the Court is picking up a 
departure ground that I didn't, but certainly I think he would 
fit right into that as well.  And, of course, that also is a 
ground for a downward variance.  
I talked about the difficulties in prison in the 
sentencing memo.  I don't think I need to repeat a lot of 
those.  I think it's obvious that he would be incredibly 
vulnerable in prison, just -- I don't know how he could even 
function quite frankly.  And certainly would be an easy target 
for predators inside the prison system.  
Also talked about a little bit in the sentencing 
memo, and I don't think it's the key point here, but he agreed 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 10 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
10
to the restitution in this case.  I think that could have been 
an argument that we had.  I mean, the loss amount -- the 
government agreed and the probation office found that the loss 
amount from the PPP part of the case did not apply here to 
these guidelines.  And I think there would have been an 
argument that he wouldn't have been obligated for restitution.  
It could have gone either way potentially.  But as part of his 
acceptance of responsibility he agreed to that.  
Now, it's going to be burdensome for him, it's going 
to be something that he's going to have for a long time, but 
it's also something that he never, for lack of a better word, 
enjoyed the benefits of the money from that case.  It all went 
to co-defendants who I think were the ones who lured him into 
this.  And the money that was left sitting in his account was 
seized by the government.  So, you know, he's not somebody who 
was out there buying fancy cars or doing any kind of big 
spending.  The money was just sitting there.  
So, despite that, he is still on the hook for the 
restitution, and I think that's a further ground for a 
variance.  So we would ask the Court to vary down to 
probation. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  
And, I'm sorry, I don't know if Mr. Gaines would like 
to make a statement on his own behalf, but let me explain to 
you, Mr. Gaines, I've read what your attorney has supplied to 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 11 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
11
the Court in a sentencing memorandum, and I've heard his 
arguments, but I would be happy to hear from you as well, sir, 
if you would like to say anything on your own behalf before I 
sentence you this afternoon. 
THE DEFENDANT:  No, I would not like to say anything. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you, sir.  
Mr. Kitchens. 
MR. KITCHENS:  Thank you, your Honor.  
We ultimately agree with much of what Mr. Mendelsohn 
has said.  And, in fact, we agree that a sentence of 
probation is ultimately the appropriate one here based on   
the consideration of the Section 3553(a) factors.  
While I think we agree with that final destination, I 
think the parties disagree to some extent about the path to 
get there.  We think appropriately that a downward variance 
should apply to basically get him to that probationary range 
rather than the downward departure.  So I'll briefly discuss 
those downward departures before explaining the basis for why 
the government thinks that a downward variance is proper here.  
For the various grounds that the -- I'll start with 
kind of the preliminary grounds that Mr. Mendelsohn has 
raised.  His age, the mental and emotional conditions for 
Mr. Gaines, and then his physical condition as well.  
Under the guidelines there's the same test ultimately 
for each of those, which is that the Court should consider a 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 12 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
12
departure if the issues based on age, mental condition or 
physical condition are present to an unusual degree that 
distinguishes the case from a typical case that the Court 
would see.  
The downward departure under 5H1.4 adds a little bit 
more context and it notes that it may apply in the case of an 
extraordinary physical impairment or if a defendant is 
seriously infirmed.  I think that consideration and what's 
described in the guidelines really shows the high legal bar 
that the Court needs to reach to find any of those downward 
departures apply.  
We certainly think that they are significant facts 
regarding Mr. Gaines' conditions and his unique conditions 
that support a variance, and we'll discuss that.  But I don't 
think it meets the high bar that's required for the Court to 
find that he meets one of those downward departure grounds.  
I think Mr. Mendelsohn fairly notes in his sentencing 
memorandum that as a 67-year-old defendant Mr. Gaines would 
surely be on the older side of defendants that are in the 
prison system.  That is certainly the case, the government 
agrees.  However, it's also the case that we certainly have 
defendants in our district that are older.  It is not uncommon 
in fraud cases that you will have defendants in their late 60s 
that are facing punishment for crimes that they did against 
others.  It's not the case that every defendant who is in 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 13 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
13
their late 60s qualifies for a downward departure just based 
on their age.  
Similarly with those physical conditions that are 
outlined in paragraphs 47 through 50 of the PSR, I think 
Mr. Mendelsohn fairly notes that, again, many of those 
conditions -- and there are a lot of them, some of them are 
significant and they are chronic issues.  But I think based on 
the case law that have developed regarding a departure based 
on physical conditions, it would not qualify as extraordinary 
by themselves.  
The cases interpreting the guidelines and this 
downward departure have really underscored how rare it is  
that this downward departure would apply.  I think in 
deVegter, and the Eleventh Circuit certainly noted, that this 
was a discouraged ground for a downward departure.  
The Court may recall in Mr. Benoit's sentencing some 
of the cases that were cited, I think they were mostly 
out-of-circuit cases, but they were cited describing some of 
the few instances where those type of departures would apply.  
And it was a case -- I think one was a defendant suffering 
from a brain tumor.  And there was a 78-year-old with 
depression and coronary artery disease.  
Other cases actually in the Eleventh Circuit have 
denied the application of a downward departure when the 
defendant similarly faced very serious health conditions, 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 14 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
14
things like lymphoma, renal kidney disease, Sickle cell 
anemia, HIV.  The fact is that the way that the case law has 
developed it takes a truly extraordinary amount of physical 
infirmity for that downward departure to apply.  
And then it's similar ultimately for the mental and 
emotional health downward departure.  I think, again, the PSR 
outlines this and describes this very well in paragraphs 51 
through 52.  And then, of course, there's the report attached 
to the PSR as well.  And those are significant issues.  We do 
not diminish them in any way.  And I think that, again, is an 
important factor in the government's ultimate sentencing 
recommendation.  But based on the case law and how it is 
developed does not seem to meet the legal requirement of what 
is present in an unusual degree.  
There's a case, just to give an example, United 
States v. Astudillo-Carvajal, that's 788 Fed.Appx. 677.  It's 
an Eleventh Circuit case from 2019 where the district court 
there denied a request for downward departure when there was a 
finding that the defendant suffered from major depression, 
post-traumatic stress disorder, had low intelligence, various 
other cognitive issues.  And the Eleventh Circuit noted it did 
not have jurisdiction essentially to review the denial of that 
downward departure.  But I thought it was telling in that case 
with the district court, while it denied the downward 
departure, it ultimately varied downward 30 months in that 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 15 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
15
case.  And I think that analysis is instructive and ultimately 
what the government recommends here in terms of the proper 
context in which to consider those unique history and 
characteristics of the defendant.  
With the aberrant conduct downward departure under 
5K2.20, there's also an Eleventh Circuit case that I think is 
instructive on this.  It's United States v. Orrega, that's 363 
F.3d, 1093.  That's an Eleventh Circuit case from 2004.  It, 
again, has very similar language in noting that that downward 
departure applies only in extraordinary cases.  And it held 
that the commission of two criminal acts by, in that case, 
having two separate conversations with an undercover agent in 
an enticement case barred the defendant from receiving that 
particular downward departure under 5K2.20.  
Here we don't disagree at all with Mr. Mendelsohn in 
terms of Mr. Gaines' lifetime of good acts in the community 
and his military service and civic service as well, but he 
did, in fact, commit two separate criminal acts as part of 
this 1001 offense.  This was two separate calls and 
conversations containing false statements with Special Agent 
Joe Stites.  
Paragraph 16 of the PSR describes the first one in 
which Mr. Gaines, when he was initially called by Agent 
Stites, reported that Gaines Reservation & Travel had five to 
six employees.  And when at that point Special Agent Stites 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 16 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
16
noted the fact there was 69 employees listed in the PPP loan 
application for Gaines Reservation & Travel, Mr. Gaines said 
he needed to review the full documents.  Now, of course, at 
that time Mr. Gaines knew full well that Gaines Reservation & 
Travel had no employees, and yet he made those false 
statements and said that he needed to review documents.  
There's then a second call which is described in 
paragraph 17.  And that occurs the same day but it's two 
separate incidents.  And in that second call Mr. Gaines 
claimed that Gaines Reservation & Travel did, in fact, have 69 
employees, that it had a large monthly payroll.  And that, of 
course, and we do not dispute, that those were based on 
essentially, you know, items that Darrell Thomas coached him 
to say in response.  
We do not, you know, again, have any dispute about 
that; however, there were two separate incidents in which 
Mr. Gaines provided false statements to Special Agent Stites.  
And based on that, the departure under 5K2.20 does not apply.  
The Court notes 5H1.11 also could apply and provide a 
measure -- or reason for downward departure.  I confess, I 
have not reviewed that and researched it to figure out cases 
that have interpreted it to see if it has been in a similar 
context.  
But Mr. Gaines certainly does have significant 
military service, you know, more than two decades of service 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 17 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
17
for the Navy.  I'm not sure, but ultimately, you know, the 
cases that have applied to that, it does have -- that same 
language about the military service has to be present in an 
unusual degree and it is otherwise discouraged.  Again, that's 
consistent with our view, which is that the appropriate way to 
consider all of those factors for Mr. Gaines and all the 
things that would point towards a probationary sentence is 
taken through the lens of a downward variance rather than 
through a downward departure.  And that is just simply as a 
result of how the case law has developed, that it is truly the 
rare case where a downward departure based on those grounds 
would apply.  
And I think Mr. Mendelsohn himself ultimately, you 
know, recognized that in his sentencing memo where he notes 
that the Court could apply a downward variance based on very 
similar grounds without -- I think his words were apt, without 
essentially jumping through the hoop of finding a downward 
departure.  
And that ultimately is the government's 
recommendation based on our full consideration of the Section 
3553(a) factors.  We do think a probationary sentence here is 
proper.  
I think the primary thing that is guiding that 
recommendation is the history and characteristics of 
Mr. Gaines.  And that I think has been eloquently stated by 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 18 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
18
Mr. Mendelsohn both in his sentencing memorandum as well as 
his argument today.  
It is clear to us that while the -- each individual 
factor, even taken in combination of his age and health 
conditions and his cognitive issues, are not enough to meet 
kind of that legal bar of a downward departure.  It is a 
significant factor not only in terms of his commission of the 
underlying offense, but also in terms of the outcomes that he 
could face and the propriety of the sentence that the Court 
would impose in terms of what he would be looking at and how 
he would respond to a prison sentence.  
In terms of his commission -- how it affected his 
conduct in the commission of the offense, we certainly have 
heard defendants that have noted that they were duped by 
Darrell Thomas and others in certain cases, that they were 
roped into this scheme, maybe did not know each and every 
detail but yet still knowingly participated in the fraud.  
We do think to some measure that that is true for 
even all those other defendants, that they were -- to some 
degree may have been misled by Darrell Thomas and others.  But 
what distinguishes Mr. Gaines here from the other defendants 
and I think takes him out of the heartland of those other 
defendants is the unique role that his health conditions 
played in making him vulnerable.  And that is I think the 
language that was highlighted specifically in Mr. Mendelsohn's 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 19 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
19
sentencing memo, that it essentially noted that he was 
exceptionally vulnerable to manipulation.  He did not have any 
sort of understanding of the larger scheme.  Was used 
essentially as a tool for others simply because he had a 
dormant corporation that he had funded and that was 
essentially taken advantage of by a family member.  
As a result of that, you know, ultimately, as we 
learned more about the case, this is why I think the Court 
heard that we have a sentence being imposed not on an 
underlying participation in the PPP loan fraud but based on 
the lies that were told to Special Agent Stites.  
We also agree with Mr. Mendelsohn that prison is not 
the proper environment for someone with Mr. Gaines' 
conditions.  Mr. Gaines is not one who would benefit from the 
educational or vocational training at a prison facility.  He's 
not someone that needs rehabilitation.  He would have to 
receive medical care, of course, provided by the Bureau of 
Prisons.  And that would be not only, as Mr. Mendelsohn notes, 
extremely costly for the government, but it would not 
ultimately serve a beneficial role really for the justice 
system in terms of either deterrence or rehabilitation for a 
defendant that is facing Mr. Gaines' unique circumstances.  
The countervailing concern, of course, in many cases 
is the seriousness of the offense and the need to afford 
adequate deterrence.  I don't think ultimately that the 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 20 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
20
government's recommendation of probation in this case 
diminishes the seriousness of the offense or the need for 
deterrence.  
The fact, as I already noted, was that Mr. Gaines did 
not knowingly participate in the underlying PPP fraud.  He is, 
of course, being sentenced just based on that false statement 
to the agents.  And that is significant by itself.  He did 
knowingly lie to Special Agent Stites.  Mr. Gaines understood 
at the time the difference between the truth and a lie, he 
knew that he was lying to the federal agent, and he knew it 
was wrong when he did it.  
Lying to a federal agent during an investigation can 
have meaningful consequences to the whole justice system.  
Those lies can be corrosive and they have a corrosive effect 
on others.  It can impede the ability for law enforcement to 
detect and deter criminal conduct.  And indeed criminal 
conduct in this case was ongoing after Mr. Gaines had this 
interview with Special Agent Stites.  
So the nature of this offense itself is significant, 
and I don't mean to diminish the seriousness of it.  And 
general deterrence is a fair factor for the Court's 
consideration to deter others from making similar lies.  
But ultimately I think that our concern with those 
two factors is lessened for two reasons.  First, again, is 
Mr. Gaines' health conditions that make him a very unique 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 21 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
21
defendant.  And second is Mr. Gaines' conduct after sentencing 
in this case.  I won't belabor the point because we've already 
I think on both sides discussed more details about Mr. Gaines' 
unique cognitive and physical conditions but it certainly 
affected his decision making here.  
It is unlikely that a prison sentence here would 
deter those with the same condition.  And those without the 
same condition would not be deterred either by sending 
Mr. Gaines to prison.  
I think also that Mr. Gaines' conduct since he was 
charged in this case also shows not only his remorse but also 
constructive steps that he's taken that reaffirm really the 
lower need for deterrence and the fact that probation is 
proper here.  
As Mr. Mendelsohn noted he agreed to pay full 
restitution here in this case.  He pled early.  He did not 
file any sort of motions.  Furthermore, he provided, you know, 
a statement to the government clarifying his role in the 
offense and the role of others.  All of those steps I think 
are constructive and show Mr. Gaines' acceptance of 
responsibility to a significant degree and his understanding 
of what he did was wrong.  And it does not seem in light of 
all those circumstances that a sentence of imprisonment would 
serve either Mr. Gaines or the justice system.  
So overall we agree with Mr. Mendelsohn that a 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 22 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
22
downward variance is proper.  We think that it -- under     
the Section 3553(a) factors it reflects the history and 
characteristics of the defendant while also taking into 
account the seriousness of the offense and the need for 
deterrence.  
We think it is a fair result based on the offense  
and it is the just result given Mr. Gaines' unique health 
conditions and making sure that, you know, he has accepted 
responsibility for his offense. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Kitchens.  
I'm attempted to ask you for a few of those case 
cites.  I got some of them but not all of them, and I don't 
have realtime right now, but before I do that I'm going to ask 
Mr. Mendelsohn a question.  I may not need them.  
And I will say that I tend to agree with you, 
Mr. Kitchens, as to 5H1.1, age and 5K2.20, aberrant behavior.  
I think it's probably a closer call 5H1.3 as to mental health, 
5H1.4, physical condition, and 5H1.11 as far as his military 
service.  So I'm conditioned on my question for 
Mr. Mendelsohn here in a second, I may want some of those case 
cites, and I'm probably going to want to look at those cases.  
But I may not need to.  
Mr. Mendelsohn, you've asked me for, on behalf of 
your client, a sentence of probation either via variance or 
via departure.  Mr. Kitchens has stood up on behalf of the 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 23 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
23
government and said, your Honor, we agree there should be a 
variance to a probationary sentence here.  If I were to agree 
with your argument and Mr. Kitchens' argument about variance 
and be prepared to sentence your client to a sentence of 
probation, would you be waiving your request for a departure 
or would you still want me to rule on the formality of the 
departure request?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  I think the Court's determination 
that it would vary would probably moot out the departure 
request, so I would be happy to withdraw that. 
THE COURT:  Very well.  
Is there any other matter that the Court needs to 
take up or anything else from either side before I issue 
sentence in this case?  
MR. KITCHENS:  Just this is, again, sort of a 
formality, but to be clear again, we -- and this is consistent 
with the plea agreement, we will be dismissing the charges 
against Mr. Gaines that are in the original indictment.  
That's in case number 1:20-CR-296. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Very well.  
Mr. Gaines, if you could please stand, sir.  
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act   of 1984, it's 
the judgment of the Court that you, Andre Lee Gaines, are 
sentenced to five years probation as to Count 1.  
Sir, I'm going to read some other portions of your 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 24 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
24
sentence, but you can have a seat at this point, sir.  
It's further ordered that the defendant shall pay to 
the United States a special assessment of $100 which shall be 
due immediately.  The Court finds that the defendant does not 
have the ability to pay a fine, therefore, the Court will 
waive the fine in this case.  
It's further ordered that the defendant shall make 
restitution in the amount of $806,710 to the Clerk of Court 
for distribution to the following victims:  
Cross River Bank in the amount of $782,508.70.  And 
the US Small Business Administration, $24,201.30.  
And I will say to my able law clerk, I appreciate her 
writing out those numbers for me.  I've had a sentencing 
recently with a lot of big numbers in it and she must have 
been here and heard me butcher those.  So thank you.  
Restitution shall be paid in full immediately.  The 
Court determines that you do not have the ability to pay 
interest and it is ordered that the interest requirement is 
waived for restitution.  
You must pay the above-noted financial penalties in 
accordance with the schedule of payment sheet of the judgment.  
All criminal monetary penalties are to be made 
payable to the Clerk, US District Court, 2211 US Courthouse, 
75 Ted Turner Drive, Southwest, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303.  
Any balance that remains unpaid at the commencement 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 25 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
25
of the term of supervision shall commence within 30 days of 
this judgment on the following terms:  
Payable at a rate of no less than 250 monthly to the 
US District Court Clerk.  
You must notify the Court of any changes in economic 
circumstances that might affect the ability to pay this 
financial penalty.  
You must report to the probation office in the 
federal judicial district where you are authorized to reside 
within 72 hours of the time you are sentenced unless the 
probation officer instructs you to report to a different 
probation office or within a different time frame.  
While on probation you must comply with the following 
mandatory conditions:  
You must not commit another federal, state or local 
crime.  
You must not unlawfully possess a controlled 
substance.  
You must refrain from any unlawful use of a 
controlled substance.  
The drug testing condition is suspended based on   
the Court's determination that you pose low risk of future 
substance abuse.  
You must cooperate in the collection of DNA as 
directed by the probation officer.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 26 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
26
You must make restitution in accordance with 18 USC, 
Sections 2248, 2259, 2264, 2327, 3663, 3363(a) and 3664.  
As part of your probation you must comply with the 
standard conditions of supervision.  These conditions are 
imposed because they establish basic expectations for your 
behavior while on supervision and identify the minimum tools 
needed by probation officers to keep informed, report to the 
Court and bring about improvements in your conduct and 
condition.  The standard conditions of supervision will be 
included in your judgment.  
You must comply with the following special conditions 
during the term of probation:  
You must make full and complete disclosure of your 
finances and submit an audit to your -- of your financial 
documents at the request of your probation officer.  
You must provide the probation officer with full and 
complete access to any requested financial information and 
authorize the release of any financial information.  The 
probation office may share the financial information with the 
United States Attorney's Office.  
You must not incur new credit card charges or open 
additional lines of credit without the approval of the 
probation officer.  
You must submit your person, property, house, 
residence, vehicle, papers, computers, other electronic 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 27 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
27
communications or data storage devices or media or office to a 
search conducted by a United States Probation Officer.  
Failure to submit to a search may be grounds for revocation of 
release.  
You must warn any other occupants that the premises 
may be subject to searches pursuant to this condition.  
An officer may conduct a search pursuant to this 
condition only when reasonable suspicion exists that you 
violated a condition of your supervision and that areas to be 
searched contain evidence of this violation.  
Any search must be conducted at a reasonable time and 
in a reasonable manner.  
You must permit confiscation and/or disposal of any 
material considered to be contraband or any other item which 
may be deemed to have evidentiary value of violations of 
supervision.  
This sentence is made in view of the sentencing goals 
delineated in 18 USC, Section 3553(a), and the parties' 
arguments as to those factors, including:  
The nature and circumstances of the offense and the 
history and characteristics of the defendant;
The need for the sentence imposed to reflect the 
seriousness of the offense, to afford adequate deterrence and 
to protect the public; 
The kinds of sentences available; 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 28 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
28
The kinds of sentence in the sentencing range 
established for the applicable category of offense committed 
as set forth in the sentencing guidelines; 
Any pertinent policy statement; 
The need to avoid sentencing disparity;
And the need to provide restitution to victims.  
This sentence meets the criteria of punishment, 
deterrence and incapacitation and is sufficient but not 
greater than necessary to comply with the directives of 
Section 3553(a).  
Based on these considerations, I find that this is a 
just and appropriate sentence, particularly in light of the 
defendant's age, his mental issues, his physical issues, the 
fact that other than this offense he has not engaged in 
criminal activity in his life to any degree.  
I think also that his military service is important 
as I consider the history and characteristics of the 
defendant.  The record will reflect that he served 20 years.  
I think it was '73 to '94, so it might have even been 
21 years.  I'm not sure what part of each year, but you served 
20 years in the Navy, including overseas service, and was 
honorably discharged. 
So, sir, I appreciate your service to our country and 
your willingness to take an oath to give your life so that the 
rest of us can live free.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 29 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
29
However, this is still a serious crime and warrants 
punishment and warrants the punishment of probation.  
But based on all of the 3553(a) factors, I do believe 
that it's warranted to vary downward here.  Given that I have 
varied downward, I understand the defense has withdrawn their 
request for departure, so I do not reach the departure 
grounds.  
Is that correct, Mr. Mendelsohn?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That is. 
THE COURT:  Before I advise the defendant of his 
appeal rights, does the government or the defendant have any 
further objections to the findings of the Court, the guideline 
calculations or to the sentence or manner in which it's been 
pronounced?  
MR. KITCHENS:  No objections, your Honor.  Just two 
notes.  
First, with the restitution order that your Honor 
imposed, I wanted to note that it should be joint and several 
with several other defendants that are in the indictment in 
20-CR-296. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Let me just put that on the 
record.  
And, yes, that wasn't in the materials I received but 
that would seem to make sense.  The restitution that I've 
announced earlier, and Mr. Mendelsohn I'm assuming you don't 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 30 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
30
disagree or have any argument on this, will be joint and 
several with the other defendants in indictment number -- 
MR. KITCHENS:  20-CR-296. 
THE COURT:  -- 20-CR-296.  
Mr. Mendelsohn, is that correct?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That is correct.  And I was actually 
going to bring up specifically John Gaines, Darrell Thomas and 
Carla Jackson. 
THE COURT:  The Court concurs.  So noted.  
You had something else, Mr. Kitchens?  
MR. KITCHENS:  We think -- those three I think, the 
additional defendants that were charged in connection with 
Gaines Reservation & Travel, of that loan, and the superseding 
indictment would include Teldrin Foster and we believe Jesika 
Blakely as well.  We can double-check, but we think it's 
Jesika Blakely. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Mendelsohn.
MR. MENDELSOHN:  That's fine.  We dropped out of that 
case largely before the others were added, but to the extent 
these others participated in preparing the paperwork for that 
case, we would concur. 
THE COURT:  What I'll do is it will be joint and 
several with the other two names just mentioned by 
Mr. Kitchens as well, which are -- 
MR. KITCHENS:  Teldrin Foster and Jesika Blakely. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 31 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
31
THE COURT:  Very well.  
And, Mr. Kitchens, if you after getting back to your 
office realize that that's incorrect, please let us know and 
we'll correct that in the record. 
MR. KITCHENS:  We certainly will, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Go ahead. 
MR. KITCHENS:  I was going to say just the second 
point real quick, but I believe the Court has also entered a 
consent preliminary order of forfeiture in this case.  And we 
would just ask that the forfeiture be included, incorporated 
in the judgment and commitment order as well. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  It will be.  
And, Ms. Walker, have I already signed that or do you 
have it for me?  
COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK:  I'll have to print it out 
for you, sir. 
THE COURT:  That will be included, and I will sign 
that at the conclusion of this proceeding.  
Anything else from either side?  
MR. MENDELSOHN:  Nothing from the defense.  Thank 
you. 
MR. KITCHENS:  Nothing else from the government. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Gaines, you can appeal your 
conviction if you believe that your guilty plea was somehow 
unlawful or involuntary or if there's some other fundamental 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 32 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
32
defect in the proceedings that was not waived by your guilty 
plea.  You also have the statutory right to appeal your 
sentence under certain circumstances, particularly if you 
think the sentence is contrary to law.  
However, a defendant may waive those rights as part 
of a plea agreement, and you've entered into a plea agreement 
which with very limited exceptions waives most of your rights 
to appeal the sentence itself.  Such waivers are generally 
enforceable, but if you believe the waiver is unenforceable, 
you can present that theory to the Appellate Court.  With few 
exceptions, any notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days 
of judgment being entered in your case.  
If you're unable to pay the cost of your appeal, you 
may apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis or without 
payment of fees.  If you so request, the Clerk of Court will 
prepare and file a notice of appeal on your behalf.  On appeal 
you may also apply for court-appointed counsel.  
If you have any further questions about your right to 
appeal, I'm sure that Mr. Mendelsohn would be happy to advise 
you further on this matter.  
And Ms. Walker just advised me that I did sign the 
consent order it looks like on August 4th of this year.  
Mr. Gaines, do you have any questions about anything 
that I've said at today's sentencing hearing, sir?  
THE DEFENDANT:  No, your Honor. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 33 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
33
THE COURT:  Counsel, anything else that we need to 
discuss?  
MR. KITCHENS:  No, your Honor. 
MR. MENDELSOHN:  No, Judge.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Good to see all of you.  
Ms. Walker, Ms. Coudriet, Officer and Officer Ridley, 
thank you as well.  
Mr. Gaines, best of luck to you, sir.  I think 
Mr. Mendelsohn did a fine job of advocating for you in this 
proceeding, both before me but as importantly I would say I'm 
sure in his communications with Mr. Kitchens.  It made it an 
easy decision for me here that counsel for both the government 
and your counsel agreed on the results here.  
I obviously considered the 3553(a) factors 
independent of their arguments, but one thing I always 
consider, and I believe the law requires me to consider, is 
the arguments they make as to those factors.  And when, like 
here, they agree, it can sometimes be difficult for me to do 
anything but that under the facts, and that's what I thought 
was appropriate here.  
I do applaud you for your service to our country.  
And I'm sorry that you got involved in this.  I hope that you 
will be infinitely more careful going forward and make sure 
that you have close family or friends helping you and advising 
you as you go through the rest of your life so that no one 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 34 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
34
else hopefully will take advantage of your condition.  
Does that make sense, sir?  
THE DEFENDANT:  Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Best of luck to you.  
Everybody takes care.  
That concludes this proceeding.
(PROCEEDINGS REPORTED WERE CONCLUDED AT 1:52 PM.)
___________________________ 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 35 of 36

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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT - OFFICIAL CERTIFIED TRANSCRIPT
35
C E R T I F I C A T E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
I do hereby certify that the foregoing pages are a true
and correct transcript of the proceedings taken down by me in 
the case aforesaid.
   This the 29th Day of January, 2024.  
    ________________________________
  
  
               
    PENNY PRITTY COUDRIET, RMR, CRR
    OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 896     Filed 02/02/24     Page 36 of 36

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.gand.292218.896.0.pdf
Size
293,404 bytes
SHA-256
25b4e88f485e11d54ecca4daa0f947907d740227626f13b6e64dd99bb97fdb18
Our copy
gov.uscourts.gand.292218.896.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top