TRANSCRIPT of Sentencing Proceedings as to Carla Jackson held on 5/16/2024, before… — USA v. Thomas et al (Dkt. 1047)

Summary

The official transcript of the May 16, 2024 sentencing proceedings for Carla Jackson in United States of America v. Carla Jackson, Docket No. 1:20-CR-296-JPB, before U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed June 22, 2024, as Document 1047. The court states that on February 15 a jury found Jackson guilty of Counts 46 and 47 of the second superseding indictment for money laundering. Defense counsel David D. Marshall withdraws loss-amount objections and argues for a mitigating role adjustment, while the government seeks an obstruction enhancement. The transcript runs 107 pages, and closes with the court confirming advice on the 14-day appeal period.

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

Record facts

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 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 1 of 107

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-296-JPB
) 
CARLA JACKSON,
)
)
DEFENDANT.
)
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE J.P. BOULEE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAY 16, 2024
APPEARANCES:
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT: 
ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT: 
TAL C. CHAIKEN, ESQ.
SAMIR KAUSHAL, ESQ.
NORMAN BARNETT, ESQ.  
BABASIJIBOMI MOORE, ESQ.  
ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS
ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT - CARLA JACKSON:
DAVID D. MARSHALL, 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 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 2 of 107

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
(PROCEEDINGS HELD IN OPEN COURT AT 12:59 PM, ATLANTA, GA.) 
COURTROOM DEPUTY CLERK:  The Court has set aside time 
for a sentencing in United States of America v. Carla Jackson, 
Case Number 1:20-CR-296. 
Will counsel and probation state their appearances 
for the record. 
MS. CHAIKEN:  Good afternoon, your Honor.  Tal 
Chaiken for the United States.  Seated with me at counsel 
table are Samir Kashual from my office and Siji Moore from the 
Department of Justice's fraud section.  And seated behind us 
is Special Agent Stefan Bublitz from the FBI. 
THE COURT:  Thank you. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Good afternoon, Judge Boulee.  David 
Marshall appearing on behalf of Ms. Carla Jackson. 
THE COURT:  Good afternoon to both of you as well.
OFFICER RIDLEY:  Good afternoon, your Honor.  Maria 
Ridley on behalf of the United States Probation Office. 
THE COURT:  Officer, good to see you.  
On February 15th of this year a jury found 
Ms. Jackson guilty of Counts 46 and 47 of the second 
superseding indictment for the offense of money laundering.  
In accordance with Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of 
Criminal Procedure the US 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 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 3 of 107

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
defense.  
Mr. Marshall, have you and your client had an 
opportunity to read and discuss the presentence report?  
MR. MARSHALL:  We have, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Do you have any questions about the 
presentence report or any amendments now other than what's 
been previously filed?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I did submit I think an extra 
e-mail to Ms. Lee at some point, but it will be addressed I 
think as we go through the PSR but nothing additional. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you. 
Which extra e-mail was that just to make sure that 
I've seen it?  
MR. MARSHALL:  I had e-mailed, I believe, an 
objection to the restitution amount.  I believe Ms. Lee may 
have gotten that e-mail. 
THE COURT:  I saw that. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Right.  I'm not going to argue for 
that, Judge.  The full restitution amount is what is under 
MVRA that's allowed.  And it's in the discretion of the 
Department of Justice on how or if they will offset it.  So I 
do not need to address that.  
There are some objections that I initially made to 
the loss amount in the PSR.  They're still showing in the 
revised PSR.  I think I just got those.  They were in my 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 4 of 107

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
sentencing memorandum, so they may not have gotten to 
Ms. Ridley in time.  There are specific paragraphs on those.  
I can let the Court know.  
Withdrawing objections to paragraphs 82, 93, 95 and 
105 -- or 103, excuse me.  
Defendant does object to paragraph 92 in the revised 
PSR, that's the government's argument for obstruction 
enhancement.  
And then the final, I guess, adjusted the sentencing 
options at the end, I believe paragraphs 99, 100 and 103 could 
be impacted, I guess, by the objections, Judge. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you. 
Just so we're clear, I know that you had withdrawn 
the objections to loss amount.  I had paragraph 73 involving 
that as well.  Do you withdraw that objection?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Yes, if it's -- yes.  Yes, your Honor, 
exactly, 73 also. 
As the Court knows we did -- we are arguing for a 
role adjustment.  I know you'll get to that at some point.  
And the government's obviously asking for an obstruction 
enhancement. 
THE COURT:  Understood.  And just so the record is 
clear, then, as well, as far as the restitution versus 
forfeiture e-mail that you sent, you're not arguing that point 
anymore, you've withdrawn that?  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 5 of 107

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
MR. MARSHALL:  No.  No, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Very well.  
All right.  There are some unresolved guideline 
issues that I want to discuss.  There were some incorporated 
clarifications that seemed to not be at issue to anyone.  
There was one factual issue that doesn't go to the 
guideline, but I wanted to get the government's position that 
involved it's either paragraph 109 or 112 regarding the 
incident that Ms. Jackson says was entirely Mr. Gaines and not 
her.  
Does the government want to be heard on that point?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  No, your Honor.  It doesn't effect the 
guidelines and we don't have any information -- 
THE COURT:  I'll sustain that objection, then, and 
won't consider that issue.
MR. MARSHALL:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  So I think that the two remaining issues, 
then, are mitigating role and obstruction.  Does everyone 
agree?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes, your Honor. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Yes, Judge. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Let's take the mitigating role 
issue first.  Mr. Marshall, that's your burden, so I'll hear 
from you first.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Thank you, Judge.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 6 of 107

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
Judge, in part I'm going to go through the factors 
that the Court looks at in looking at sentencing guideline 
3B1.2 for a role adjustment, mitigating adjustment.  And I'm 
going to address some of the government arguments against it 
because I've not had a chance to do a reply or I haven't filed 
a reply to their response memorandum.  
It is correct, the two first principles that the 
Court looks at are determination of the defendant's role in 
the offense.  That's the defendant's role and the relevant 
conduct for which she is held accountable at sentencing.  
And, number two, the defendant's role as compared to 
other participant's roles in the relevant conduct.  
So that's the opening requirement for a court to look 
at, your Honor.  
The government is right, the universe of the 
defendants that have to be looked at to try to determine a 
role adjustment and whether Ms. Jackson is eligible for it 
will be three individuals.  It will be actually Ms. Jackson, 
John Gaines and Andre Gaines.  
And I do want to point out, I don't know if the Court 
has a copy of the government's sentencing memorandum, but I 
will be referring to parts of it.  And I'm going to cite 
actually page three and page four of the government 's 
memorandum.  And that's Docket Number 994.  
THE COURT:  I have it. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 7 of 107

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
MR. MARSHALL:  So the middle paragraph, Ms. Jackson 
has been held accountable for only the amount of the laundered 
funds.  So we have that.  And her role in the offense is 
determined by comparing her role to other participants in that 
relevant conduct.  
Now, it says down below in the bottom of that 
paragraph, it says, The only other participant in the offenses 
for which Jackson was held accountable, concealment money 
laundering, is John Gaines.  And the Court, therefore, cannot 
compare Jackson's role to anyone other than John Gaines.  
And then there's a reference at the top of page four 
to footnote two.  And that is, Andre Gaines was not a 
participant in the money laundering offenses for which Jackson 
was held accountable.  He is pleading guilty to lying to the 
FBI in connection with an interview he gave about Gaines 
Reservation and the PPP loan.  So I want to address that 
first, if I could, Judge.  
I've written on this, Judge.  This is a copy of the 
first indictment.  It was handed down in this case.  And it 
was filed on August 4th, 2020.  And the second-named defendant 
in this indictment is Andre Lee Gaines.  He is charged in one, 
two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight separate counts.  He 
is charged with conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire 
fraud, that's in Count 1.  He is charged with substantive 
counts, violation of bank fraud in Count 2.  Allegations of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 8 of 107

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
wire fraud in Count 3.  Allegations of providing false 
statements to a federally-insured bank in Count 14.  And then 
four separate counts of money laundering in Counts 18, 19, 27, 
and 28.  
Counts 27 and 28 Ms. Jackson is also charged in.  
They happened to deal with the two transactions at issue in 
this case that Ms. Jackson was found guilty of.  Those are the 
two money transfers.  There was one wire transfer and then a 
bank deposit, a check deposit that was made into her account.  
Andre Gaines was charged in part of that conduct.  
So I do want to point out, Judge, this statement in 
the footnote that the government has here that Andre Gaines 
was not a participant is just a misrepresentation.  It's not 
true.  The government decided at a later time to not go 
forward with those charges against Mr. Andre Gaines but 
decided to offer him a different deal to pleading to a false 
statement to a federal officer, and then he got a five-year 
probated sentence.  But to say that he was not a participant 
in the money laundering offenses for which Ms. Jackson was 
held accountable is just false, Judge.  And I want to correct 
that misrepresentation to the Court.  
So there are three individuals.  Andre Gaines's 
company, Gaines Reservation & Travel, was the company where 
these funds came from.  The check that went to Ms. Jackson's 
bank account was signed by Andre Gaines.  The funds that came 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 9 of 107

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
into her account by wire transfer were transferred from the 
bank account of Andre Gaines's company, Gaines Reservation & 
Travel.  So I wanted to point that out initially, your Honor.  
Now, there's several factors that the Court has to 
address.  The government goes over some of these, too.  Number 
one is to determine what kind of role somebody could be 
eligible for, whether it's a minor role or minimal role.  
A, the degree to which Jackson understood the scope 
and structure of the criminal activity.  
Now, in this one the government argues that 
Ms. Jackson understood all of this because she was a direct 
participant in the money laundering.  And that's, in essence, 
the argument that because the money came into her account by 
check and by a wire transfer, that she understood the scope 
and the structure of the criminal activity.  
I would rebut that quickly just with a comparison to 
a drug case, Judge, because a lower-level party that agrees to 
stash drugs in his house for a drug cartel, for instance, and 
does that and agrees to receive drugs maybe on two different 
occasions into his house does not equate that he understands 
the scope and the structure of the overall criminal activity.  
So the fact that she received money into her bank 
account on two different dates, two different transactions 
does not mean that she understood the scope and structure of 
the criminal activity.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 10 of 107

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
There was no evidence at trial that was presented 
that Ms. Jackson knew about all of the conversations going on 
between Darrell Thomas and John Gaines.  There are no e-mails 
or communications where Ms. Jackson is copied on anything or 
where she sends any e-mails or where she's the recipient of 
any e-mail.  So all of that is being generated primarily by 
Darrell Thomas and John Gaines as far as the PPP loan fraud.  
But then as far as the money laundering, you have John Gaines, 
Andre Gaines and then Ms. Jackson being the recipient of the 
funds that come into her account.  
Also, and this is on page four of the government's 
memorandum, the government argues that Ms. Jackson knew that 
John Gaines was involved in the fraudulent PPP loan 
applications in the spring of 2020 and had even partially 
completed a PPP loan application herself.  There's no evidence 
that shows that she was going to submit a fraudulent PPP loan 
application. 
THE COURT:  But I'm not sure that I buy your 
corollary to stashing the drugs.  I mean, money laundering, 
the whole idea of money laundering is moving moneys from one 
place to the other usually to hide the corrupt nature of the 
money.  And here she was -- and there's two sides to that, 
sending and receiving.  She was half of that.  
So how do you -- how do you say, oh, this is just 
like there's a big drug deal and all you did was let me store 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 11 of 107

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
it at your place?  This is -- I don't buy that correlation. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I would just say in the context 
of the factor you're looking at as far as whether she 
understood the scope and structure, that's what I'm focusing 
on. 
THE COURT:  That's the same thing I'm focusing on.  
I'm saying the scope and structure of money laundering is   
the movement of that money to one place where it will be 
discovered and one place that it might not be discovered, 
so -- or look clean.  So I don't buy that.  Am I missing 
something?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Well, I would say this:  There's 
nothing that shows Ms. Jackson knew about -- for instance, 
John Gaines's testimony, he got on the stand I think and 
mentioned about wanting to move money to other accounts, I 
guess, to claw back and move things around.  There's no 
testimony that Ms. Jackson knew anything about any of that 
stuff.  So that's part of the scope and structure of the 
criminal activity, about how that was done and why that was 
done.  So she certainly didn't know about that.  There's no 
evidence that shows that she knew about what Darrell Thomas 
and John Gaines were discussing about moving the money over to 
her bank account.  
The money came into her account, that is irrefutable, 
Judge.  But as far as determining the scope and structure of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 12 of 107

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
the criminal activity and what John Gaines was doing and what 
his agreement was with Mr. Darrell Thomas for the PPP loan 
moneys that were received and also for Andre Gaines, there's 
no direct evidence of that, of her knowing other than she was 
getting money that was coming into her account and because of 
the jury's verdict that she did know that the source was an 
illegal source for the funds. 
THE COURT:  Well, exactly.  I mean, you know, you may 
not like that result but that's what the jury found.  You 
know, they found that she was getting money that she knew was 
the result of PPP fraud. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Right.  But I still say, Judge -- 
THE COURT:  And money laundering, again, half of it 
is the movement and the recipient of it.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Right.  But it still doesn't say -- it 
doesn't show because she receives it that she knows the scope 
and the structure of the fraud that's being committed and the 
money movement that's occurring and why that's occurring. 
THE COURT:  But it's not -- when you say "the scope 
of the fraud that's being committed," that goes back to -- it 
sounds like you want me to just throw out and pretend that the 
Salgado case doesn't exist. 
MR. MARSHALL:  She knows the money came into her 
account, Judge, she knows that, the jury's found her guilty of 
that.  They impute knowledge that she knew the source was bad.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 13 of 107

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
I was just saying that her scope is limited as far as all the 
other front-end conversations about the money laundering and 
its purpose and so forth.  But she does have knowledge, Judge, 
according to the jury's verdict. 
THE COURT:  All right.  I'll let you move on to the 
next point, but I can tell you I'm not convinced of your first 
argument.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Okay.  
The degree to which Jackson participated in planning  
or organizing criminal activity, this is in response to 
government's page five, subsection B.  And the government 
responds, While she was not an organizer, however, that does 
not entitle her to a mitigating role.  
That's true.  
And then on the top of page six, the government 
closes off by saying that, Jackson's assertion that she was 
not involved in the planning or organization of the broader 
conspiracy involving PPP loan fraud, while true, is 
irrelevant.  
Well, it is relevant because it's the factor we're 
looking at in this guideline under 3B1.2.  So this factor 
points in favor of Ms. Jackson.  She was not -- there's no 
evidence showing that she was planning or organizing any of 
this criminal activity.  We know abundantly clear that this 
was Darrell Thomas and John Gaines primarily. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 14 of 107

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
THE COURT:  Wait.  But, again, Mr. Marshall, your -- 
I think you're again ignoring the Salgado case and you're 
saying, oh, she wasn't in authority for the greater PPP fraud.  
All we're talking about here is the money laundering. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Right.  Even there, Judge, I think -- 
well, that's the factor we have to look at, whether she 
planned and organized the criminal activity.  Did she contact 
John Gaines and say, look -- 
THE COURT:  I thought you moved to C and 
decision-making authority?  
MR. MARSHALL:  I was in B, Judge.  Excuse me.   
Excuse me.  Yes, I was in B, Judge.  That's where I'm at, on 
page five.  Is that where you are?
THE COURT:  Correct. 
MR. MARSHALL:  So I don't know of any evidence that 
showed that she planned it, structured when these -- 
THE COURT:  I thought you were on C.  I agree that 
you've got a decent argument under B. 
MR. MARSHALL:  All right.  So it is a relevant 
factor.  
Okay.  Go on to C, the degree to which Jackson 
exercised decision-making authority or influenced the exercise 
of decision-making authority.  Again, it says she's an 
educated woman, alone decided to allow John Gaines to use her 
bank account -- actually, it was Andre Gaines whose account it 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 15 of 107

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
came from, from Gaines Reservation & Travel and the PPP loan 
proceeds.  She made the decision to deposit a check, that's 
true, your Honor, even though she was not consulting for 
Gaines Reservation or providing daily business management, she 
made the decision.  
So on this one, Judge, again, I still point to the 
fact on the front end as far as what was being decided by 
Darrell Thomas and John Gaines and Andre Gaines, she was not 
exercising decision-making authority or influencing where 
those funds would go.  We know directly from John Gaines's 
testimony, he's saying that this was a decision by Darrell 
Thomas to move this money and find an account to do that.  And 
then John Gaines came in and provided his ex-wife's account to 
do that, Judge.  So that's all I'm saying on that factor.  
THE COURT:  Well, but it's not as if she didn't know 
it was on the way. 
MR. MARSHALL:  She did know that. 
THE COURT:  Right.  So -- 
MR. MARSHALL:  Well, I'm -- 
THE COURT:  As far as the decision as to where it 
goes, you know, yes, I grant your argument that on the front 
end of the decision she wasn't involved, but she was involved 
in the decision itself, in the actual execution.  Am I missing 
something?  
MR. MARSHALL:  I guess it's this way, too, Judge, you 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 16 of 107

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
don't like the drug comparison, but, again, it's that same 
thing.  The person that gets drugs into a stash house, they're 
not making decisions on the front end about where it's going 
to go, but that person does have to agree to let the drugs 
into his house on those separate dates and lock it up and so 
forth.  So there's some type of, you know, decision by saying, 
I'm going to allow this, but those decisions about where it 
goes, where the drugs are going to go were not made by that 
person, it's made by somebody else.  I'm saying that here is 
true also for John Gaines and also for Darrell Thomas, part C.  
Part D, Judge, the nature and extent of Jackson's 
participation in the commission of the criminal activity, 
including the acts performed and the responsibility and 
discretion Jackson had in performing those acts.  Again, her 
account was used.  That could go either way, Judge.  Her 
account was used for the deposit of the funds, we know that.  
So that's consistent through all of these factors.  
On factor E, the degree to which Jackson stood to 
benefit from the criminal activity, I write that in here, in 
the middle of this paragraph -- well, page seven on the 
government's memorandum, and I write in my memorandum that 
this is unclear in part because the FBI seized all the moneys 
shortly after the deposits were made.  So we do know that once 
the moneys got into the account that there was a text message, 
and it was introduced into evidence at trial, Judge, that John 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 17 of 107

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
Gaines directed Ms. Jackson to withdraw money and get three 
cashier's checks for $10,000 each, and they were made out 
under the direction of John Gaines.  I think two of them were 
to auto loan payments.  They were all directed by John Gaines 
for her to do that, pull that money out.  
So at least for the $30,000 there's no showing that 
she benefitted at all from that money.  There was some 
additional money, I think maybe about $9,700 I thought we had 
testimony, I'm not sure if I recall exactly, that was used 
possibly for other things that related to insurance payments, 
things of that nature.  But other than that, we don't know how 
these other funds would have been used.  Ms. Jackson says they 
were going to be used for this project they were planning in 
Alabama.  But there's no evidence of her using this money for 
buying cars and things like that and how she would benefit 
other than the fact that she withdrew money primarily on the 
direction of John Gaines to take out these cashier's checks.  
So, Judge, I think we're still missing Andre Gaines 
in all of this.  I think it would be true, if we're looking  
at just the three parties who are here, John Gaines was 
instrumental in this.  He was obviously probably the most 
important.  Andre Gaines was equally important or a little 
less so because his business was used, his bank account was 
used, he signed the check, he allowed his bank to transfer the 
funds that were illegally obtained to Ms. Jackson's account 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 18 of 107

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
and to other accounts.  So without Andre being available to do 
this, Judge, they would have had to find some other way to -- 
and some other account to do this.  Andre Gaines was 
instrumental in getting these funds sent over to what ended  
up to be Ms. Jackson's bank account.  
So of the three individuals I would say my argument 
is Ms. Jackson is the least culpable of those three in the 
money laundering scheme, not in anything else, in the money 
laundering scheme because she was the least active.  She did 
make her account available for the funds to get put into her 
account, but she didn't create it, she didn't apply for the 
fraudulent PPP loan that was -- those documents that were 
signed by Andre Gaines.  
So we cannot forget that Andre Gaines is still 
central to this, Judge, it's not just John Gaines.  It's  
Andre Gaines, it's John Gaines, and then at the end it's 
Ms. Jackson.  I think that should qualify her for at least a 
two-point minor role adjustment, Judge, again, looking at the 
case, it's De Varon case, comparing the relative 
responsibilities and what each defendant of those three did in 
this case and how critical they were in committing the money 
laundering that occurred in the counts that were charged.  
And remember, Andre Gaines was charged with the 
original money laundering counts like Ms. Jackson.  It was his 
business, it was his PPP loan application, and he signed the 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 19 of 107

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
documents for everything, including the bank check, Judge. 
THE COURT:  Thank you. 
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you, your Honor.  
Your Honor, I want to start with Andre Gaines, 
because our treatment of Andre Gaines as not being a 
participant was actually to Ms. Jackson's benefit.  If you 
consider Andre Gaines as a participant in the money laundering 
offense, Ms. Jackson is not even close to being substantially 
less culpable than the average participant.  
Andre Gaines is a disabled, elderly, cognitively- 
impaired person who has been before this Court and was 
struggling to even string together sentences.  And the Court 
heard the evidence at trial that Andre Gaines never logged 
into the Gaines Reservation & Travel bank account after the 
PPP program was announced in March of 2020.  There were no 
e-mails between Andre Gaines and Darrell Thomas, not a single 
one.  There was no transaction that Andre Gaines ever did in 
the Gaines Reservation & Travel account after the money came 
into the account as far as transactions that can actually be 
linked to him, like a debit card transaction or an ATM 
withdrawal.  His name was on those transactions, the checks 
and the wire transfers, but there's not any evidence that 
Andre Gaines got a single dime to himself from the PPP fraud.  
And if you were looking at the original indictment 
that was returned in August of 2020, the very interesting 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 20 of 107

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
thing about it is that John Gaines isn't in it, and that's 
because Andre Gaines was the name that John Gaines used to 
hide the fact that he was involved.  
When we brought the original indictment in August 
of 2020, in part because of the lies that Andre Gaines told, 
and in part because of the lies that Carla Jackson told about 
who was involved, we at that point didn't know yet or didn't 
have the evidence to prove that it was actually John Gaines 
behind the scenes pulling the strings of everything.  
So, yes, Andre Gaines was charged in those 
transactions because his name was the one on the check and  
the one on the wire transfer, but the evidence at trial showed 
that John Gaines was the one working with Darrell Thomas, John 
Gaines was the one accessing the bank account, John Gaines was 
the one telling who where money needed to go.  
And so to the extent Andre Gaines was a participant 
in the money laundering, the evidence shows that his role was 
that John Gaines put a check in front of him and told him what 
to write, or maybe even just told him to sign his name, and 
then John Gaines filled in the information, or that John 
Gaines drove him to the bank to make a wire transfer.  There 
is no evidence that Andre Gaines knew anything about what was 
happening in the payments in the Gaines Reservation & Travel 
account beyond the fact that his name is on there.  
So if we're comparing Ms. Jackson's role to the role 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 21 of 107

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
of John Gaines and Andre Gaines, she is far more culpable than 
Andre Gaines, which alone makes a minimal role or a minor role 
adjustment inappropriate.  
As far as the factors, your Honor, again, I think 
most of Mr. Marshall's arguments blur what the criminal 
activity is that we're talking about here.  We would be in a 
very different situation if Ms. Jackson had been held 
accountable for the entire PPP loan fraud that Gaines 
Reservation & Travel committed.  
And just to give the Court a counter example from 
this case, your Honor, with Aleem Rashid, who the Court may 
remember, the Court sentenced him quite a while back, he got 
his own loan.  It was a small loan of around 100-and-something 
thousand dollars for his business, but he also helped Darrell 
Thomas by recruiting employees for the Bellator Phront Group 
loan.  And he agreed to accept responsibility for the entire 
Bellator Phront Group loan of around $800,000, even though all 
he had done was recruit a couple of people to serve as fake 
employees.  And in that case we agreed to a minor role 
reduction because as compared to the conduct for which he was 
held accountable he was a minor participant.  
And that's not what we have here.  Ms. Jackson has 
not been held accountable for $806,000 PPP loan.  She's only 
been held accountable for actual money laundering that she 
participated in.  And as to that conduct, it doesn't matter if 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 22 of 107

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
she didn't see e-mails about how the PPP loan was obtained or 
why they were trying to hide the PPP loan money.  What matters 
is that she knew that money was coming into her account that 
was being described as being for consulting fees, for payroll, 
for daily business management.  She knew that those purposes 
were wrong, were false.  
She knew that John Gaines was doing PPP loan money.  
And when she was asked what the payments were for, she said 
they were for payroll, which showed that she understood the 
scope, she understood the structure, she understood the reason 
why these payments are being made is because it's made to look 
like it's for payroll and if somebody asks me about it, I need 
to say it's for payroll, because that's what the PPP 
authorizes you to make payments for.  And I think that that 
alone is very telling in the fact that she understood exactly 
what was going on.  She said this was for payroll when she was 
asked about it. Again, I think there's factors that don't 
really weigh either way.  
The second one that -- the degree to which she 
participated in the planning or organization, we agree that 
she did not plan or organize this.  We agree that John Gaines 
is the one who brought her into this and that's why we have 
argued and will argue next week that John Gaines is a manager 
or supervisor and should get a three-level aggravating role 
adjustment, but I don't think it particularly weighs in favor 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 23 of 107

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
of a minimal role reduction here.  
As far as decision-making authority and nature and 
extent of participation, again, I think the evidence shows 
that Ms. Jackson made the decision to allow John Gaines to do 
this knowing what he was going to do.  And I think the fact 
that she allowed him to do it a second time is, again, very 
telling, because after the first time that she got the checks 
that said this is for daily business management and consulting 
fees, John Gaines then asked her to make payments to pay off 
his auto loans.  And then after that, he asked her for her 
banking information so that he could make another wire 
transfer.  And she gave it to him.  And she didn't have to.  
And at that point she knew full well -- even if she had some 
tiny little bit of hope that maybe he wasn't actually just 
trying to hide PPP funds, at that point she knew full well he 
is using my account to funnel money out of his own account 
because he's trying to hide it, he's trying to make it look 
like something it's not, and she let him do it.  And he 
couldn't have done it without her.  
And at that point, your Honor, she was not married to 
him anymore.  She was not falsely believing that he would not 
lead her astray.  She knew at that point that she couldn't 
trust him, and she made the decision to help him in this way.  
I think that shows that she did exercise decision-making 
authority and that the nature and extent of her participation 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 24 of 107

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
does not make her a minor participant.  
And, again, the degree to which she stood to benefit, 
your Honor, again, I agree this is an area that we don't know 
because luckily the government was able to seize these funds 
very, very quickly before anybody was able to spend them.  
But, again, this is an issue on which Ms. Jackson bears the 
burden.  Ms. Jackson I don't think has met her burden of 
proving that this factor somehow weighs in favor of a minor 
role reduction where there's just unclear information about 
it.  
So for all those reasons, we would ask the Court to 
deny a minor role reduction. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  Mr. Marshall, your motion, so 
I'll give you the last word.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I think -- just a comment -- a 
quick comment about Andre Gaines again, Judge.  I think part 
of this will be discussed, I think, in the obstruction 
enhancement, but it's this reliance on Andre Gaines being the 
least involved in this.  And then I believe the government 
mentioned about his cognitive issues and he's disabled and so 
forth.  Your Honor, I think when we go to the obstruction I'm 
going to discuss this declaration that's mentioned by 
Mr. Gaines.  
If you'll recall, Judge, Andre Gaines, it was his 
company, a fraudulent loan application and all, he had already 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 25 of 107

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
been sentenced, he was never called in by the government to 
testify.  That's their choice, but he could have come in and 
cleared up all of these things about people's roles and what 
he did, what he didn't do, what he knew about Ms. Jackson, if 
he had communications with her, things of that nature.  
So everything is coming in in a sense on the back of 
John Gaines, who the government doesn't want anyone to believe 
generally, but then they pick and select which parts they want 
the Court to believe, but I just want to remind the Court that 
Andre Gaines never testified.  
And his testimony, even later, will come in through 
this declaration, which I will go into a little bit more then, 
Judge.  But all of the statements in this, none of this has 
been corroborated.  He's not here to testify.  It's just 
inferences and beliefs about him stemming from the fact that 
he has some physical and possibly some mental issues.  But if 
you read the declaration, this sure doesn't sound like 
something that's drafted by someone that has any kind of 
cognitive disability whatsoever.  But we'll get into that a 
little more on the obstruction enhancement, Judge.  
Again, we don't have any information from Andre 
Gaines.  It was his company.  I think the pecking order, if 
anything, is probably John Gaines, number one, Andre Gaines, 
and then Ms. Jackson.  And I think that hierarchy should give 
the Court some consideration to consider a two-point 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 26 of 107

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
reduction, Judge. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  
I'm going to deny that motion.  I don't think the 
defense has met its burden to show that Ms. Jackson's entitled 
to a mitigating role reduction here.  I'll say that, at least 
in the papers and in part of the argument, it did seem like 
the defense was trying to look at not just the narrow money 
laundering but to look at the greater PPP fraud scheme.  
Clearly that argument's foreclosed by the Salgado case, 745 
F.3d 1135, as noted in the government brief, Document 994.  
As to the consideration of the factors when I do 
narrow in on just the money laundering, I agree with the 
defense that as to factor B, the degree to which Jackson 
participated in planning or organizing the criminal activity, 
that factor weighs in favor of a mitigating role.  
As to factor E, the degree to which Jackson stood to 
benefit from the criminal activity, I think that one's 
neutral, I would say, because we don't know much about what 
was going to happen with the money that went into her account.  
But I think the other factors generally work against the 
defense.  
As far as the degree to which Jackson understood the 
scope and structure of the criminal activity, again, if we 
look at the money laundering, she did, and the jury found that 
she did, know about the scope and structure of the criminal 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 27 of 107

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
activity.  She participated in these financial transactions.  
She received these funds.  And as noted by the government, she 
got the second set of funds after receiving the first and 
communications about what was to be done with those.  
As to factor C, degree to which she exercised 
decision-making authority or influenced the exercise of 
decision-making authority, I think that one is not a slam dunk 
for the government but weighs against the mitigating role.  I 
agree that Mr. John Gaines was more involved in that 
decision-making authority and influencing and exercising the 
decision-making authority because he was the one looking for a 
place to launder these funds and a place to move them; 
however, it took Ms. Jackson and her willingness to accept 
these funds to actually execute that.  She had to decide to 
allow those funds to be deposited into her account on multiple 
occasions.  
And D is similar, similar logic there.  Again, not a 
slam dunk for the government, but I think it weighs in favor.  
So all in all, I just don't think the defense has met 
its burden to show that she's entitled to mitigating role here 
as to the money laundering.  
The next issue is the obstruction.  And that's the 
government's motion, so I'll hear from the government first.  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you, your Honor.  
The government's request for an obstruction of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 28 of 107

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
justice enhancement is based on Ms. Jackson's grand jury 
subpoena response.  Ms. Jackson attempted to obstruct the 
investigation by giving false information to the grand jury 
and withholding records from the grand jury.  
As the Court knows, the grand jury relies on subpoena 
recipients to tell the truth and provide complete records so 
that the grand jury can do its work and do it accurately.  
Here the grand jury subpoena asked Ms. Jackson on behalf of 
Management Resource Services to produce communications with 
Gaines Reservation & Travel.  And she said she drafted a cover 
letter, which she signed, in which she wrote, All 
communications were in person with Andre Gaines/Gaines 
Reservation & Travel.  
She did not mention John Gaines.  She did not produce 
her text messages with John Gaines, which she then admitted at 
trial, so we know she had them then because she still had them 
four years later.  She did not say that she had communications 
with John Gaines.  
And even though it's just one line in her grand jury 
subpoena, it's a very, very important one because it had the 
effect of concealing that John Gaines had any role in what 
happened with Gaines Reservation & Travel's PPP loan funds.  
There's no doubt that Ms. Jackson willfully omitted 
John Gaines from her response there because it's consistent 
with what happened a few weeks earlier when the FBI 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 29 of 107

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
interviewed her.  
At that interview when she was asked who she 
communicated with at Gaines Reservation & Travel, she 
struggled and paused and pretended not to remember.  And then 
she said, Andre Gaines.  And when the agent asked her how she 
knew Andre Gaines, she said a contractor referred her to Andre 
Gaines.  She did not mention John Gaines even once, even 
though now, as we're hearing from her and as the evidence at 
trial showed, he was the mastermind of the money laundering.  
He was instrumental in it.  He was the one telling her what to 
do, telling her the money was going to come, telling her to 
expect these payments from Gaines Reservation & Travel.  But 
the information that she gave to the grand jury concealed that 
and concealed the records and the communications that the 
grand jury was entitled to have in order to do its work.  
And, your Honor, even though attempted obstruction  
is enough, here you can see by the indictment that it did 
obstruct the investigation, at least for a time, because when 
that first indictment was returned, John Gaines wasn't on it.  
At that time the grand jury did not know the role that John 
Gaines played.  And that was because Ms. Jackson concealed 
from the grand jury and affirmatively lied to the grand jury 
when she said I had in-person communications with Andre 
Gaines.  That was not true.  
First of all, there's no evidence she had any 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 30 of 107

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
in-person communication with Andre Gaines ever, but she 
certainly had text communications with John Gaines, in-person 
communications with John Gaines and other communications with 
John Gaines, none of which was disclosed to the grand jury 
either in the cover letter or in terms of producing the actual 
documents.  
And I would just say, your Honor, Mr. Marshall raised 
Andre Gaines.  We are not relying on Andre Gaines or any 
testimony or anything that he is saying for this obstruction 
enhancement.  The Court can look at the cover letter itself 
and at the grand jury subpoena response itself, which was 
attached to our sentencing memorandum, to see what Ms. Jackson 
sent to the grand jury.  She sent it to the grand jury from 
her own e-mail.  She signed it in a signature that the Court 
saw multiple times across multiple documents at trial, that 
was her signature.  
And to the extent that we also mentioned the fact 
that Andre Gaines's grand jury subpoena response was nearly 
identical, at least as far as the cover letter goes, and Andre 
Gaines had said in his declaration Ms. Jackson drafted that, I 
think that's clear from the face of -- looking at the letters 
that they were both drafted by the same person.  They both 
followed the exact same format, they have the exact same font 
and spacing, they both accidentally label requests A through I 
instead of A through H, which was in the request.  It's very 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 31 of 107

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
clear that they were drafted by the same person.  And, 
frankly, for purposes of the obstruction enhancement, it 
doesn't matter who drafted them because Carla Jackson is the 
one who went into her e-mail, took that document and sent it 
to the grand jury knowing that there was false information in 
there that would mislead the grand jury into believing that 
John Gaines was not involved in this offense.  
And, again, your Honor, just to respond to something 
Mr. Marshall raised both at trial and in the sentencing 
memorandum, there's this allegation about missing information 
in the grand jury subpoena return or the grand jury subpoena.  
I'm not sure exactly what the claim is, but there's no doubt 
from the cover letter that Ms. Jackson knew she was being 
asked for communications with Gaines Reservation & Travel 
because she said, I had in-person conversations with Andre 
Gaines.  
So there was no missing instruction about -- you 
know, that could explain why she mentioned Andre Gaines and 
not John Gaines, and why she did not say that there were also 
written communications that she was withholding from the grand 
jury.  
For those reasons, we think an obstruction of justice 
enhancement is warranted. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Mr. Marshall?  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 32 of 107

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
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I have a few things I want to 
go through on this, but I want to start with the guideline 
3C1.1, and I want to go to the factors and point out to the 
Court the government's not made any reference at all to what 
part of the guidelines supports this, but I will, not that it 
supports it but what isn't shown by the government's 
testimony.  
So in the notes, your Honor, the commentary and the 
application notes, the Sentencing Commission gives examples of 
covered conduct which would make something eligible for an 
obstruction enhancement, and that is basically A through K.  
They list multiple types of activities that could constitute 
obstruction under this guideline.  
And then under application note five there are 
further examples of conduct ordinarily not covered and there  
is a list of those.  And that goes from A through E.  I just 
want to start a little bit with A through E.  
The one that would come anywhere near close to what 
the government is arguing as far as a false -- as far as 
obstruction would be part B as something that would not be 
covered.  And that is this, it says, Making false statements 
not under oath to law enforcement officers unless application 
note 4(g) applies.  And I'm going to go back to that in a 
second and we'll get there.  
So if you have somebody at the door and they happen 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 33 of 107

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
to make a statement, they provide a false statement to a law 
enforcement officer or an FBI agent, that doesn't 
automatically qualify someone for an enhancement.  That's 
clear because that's considered -- 
THE COURT:  One second, Mr. Marshall. 
MR. MARSHALL:  -- part of the conduct.  
Were you going to ask me something, Judge?  
THE COURT:  I said one second.  
Go ahead. 
MR. MARSHALL:  So that is application note five, 
examples of conduct ordinarily not covered.  But it does make 
a reference in that section that regards false statements to 
4(g).  So let's go to 4(g).  
Application note 4(g), examples of covered conduct.  
They list multiple examples.  And the one that's most, I 
guess, applicable here that the government has to bear, they 
bear the burden on this, Judge, someone providing a 
materially -- and that's important -- materially false 
statement to a law enforcement officer that significantly 
obstructed or impeded the official investigation or 
prosecution of the instant offense.  
I'm going to go into the subpoena return and all that 
individually.  I'll do that separately, Judge, but let's talk 
about that just for a second.  
I'm going to cite to United States v. Mason.  This is 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 34 of 107

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
a F.App'x case, 168 F.App'x 905.  It's a 2006 case, an 
Eleventh Circuit case.  And in this case the Court lays out -- 
it addresses the issue of the obstruction enhancement in 
C31.1.  And there's a requirement on the district court about 
how it has to look at this enhancement and whether to apply it 
or not.  
When the district court applies the obstruction of 
justice enhancement, quote, it should note specifically what 
each defendant did, why that conduct warrants the enhancement, 
and, if applicable, how that conduct actually hindered the 
investigation or prosecution of the offense.  
In this particular case, this Mason case that I just 
cited, Judge, there was an argument from the government that 
Mason provided a false police report and it delayed the 
investigation and prosecution by several months.  And the 
appellate court says the district court provided no further 
explanation.  
A court must provide a specific explanation for the 
enhancement of a sentence based on a false statement to a law 
enforcement officer.  The district court did not explain how 
Mason's conduct actually caused a delay in either the 
prosecution or investigation.  The record also does not reveal 
how, if at all, Mason's action delayed the investigation.  So 
let's go into this a little bit again.  
In the government's memo, Judge, the government 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 35 of 107

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
asserts that because of the statements made by Ms. Jackson at 
the door when Agent Stites visited her, and in her response to 
the subpoena, that that caused a delay -- I think in their 
memorandum said a year delay.  It's on page nine.  It 
basically said, During that interview, she did not mention 
John Gaines to the FBI even once despite the now known fact 
that he was central to the matters the FBI asked her about.  
And they talk about the subpoena response.  And it 
says, John Gaines was not indicted until nearly a year after 
Jackson, thus an obstruction enhancement should apply.  
Let's look at that a little bit.  We've marked 
Defendant's Exhibit 1, Judge, is a portion of a transcript, 
it's the unofficial transcript but it's from the February 8th 
trial date and it's the cross-examination of FBI Agent Stites 
and on our page -- 
THE COURT:  Sorry.  You're referencing a document I 
don't have. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Right.  I'm going to give it to you, 
Judge. 
THE COURT:  It may be helpful -- maybe you should 
give it to me before you start reading from it, if you're 
planning to give it to me. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I would tender that into 
evidence now. 
MS. CHAIKEN:  No objection, your Honor. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 36 of 107

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
36
THE COURT:  It's admitted. 
MR. MARSHALL:  If the Court can just review that 
page.  
THE COURT:  There's two pages. 
MR. MARSHALL:  I think it's 221, Judge, there's some 
questions about the first interview that was done.  And John 
Gaines I think is mentioned.  
THE COURT:  All right.  Go ahead. 
MR. MARSHALL:  So, Judge, in my questions to Agent 
Stites in cross-examination, I asked him -- I think, in your 
review of the document, Judge, this is during the first 
interview.  The first interview that occurred, the 
knock-and-talk at my client's house, was on July 7th, 2020.  
That interview recording was introduced into evidence.  
By the way, Agent Stites never asks Ms. Jackson at 
all, doesn't mention the name "John Gaines" at all one time.  
But in that testimony there it says that John Gaines was on 
their radar already.  The government knew about John Gaines.  
When they went up and knocked on her door on July 7th, 2020, 
he was already on their radar.  So I'm pulling this into this 
issue about whether this was a significant delay of the 
investigation because that's what goes to 4(g) and to the 
overall enhancement.  So they already know about him.  
And to put this in context, know, Judge, that the 
subpoena that they give to Ms. Jackson -- you have a copy of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 37 of 107

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
37
that in the sentencing memorandum -- doesn't make mention of 
John Gaines anywhere.  It makes no mention whatsoever.  So I'm 
going to go up to that, and we're going to go to that in a 
second.  
So the government does know about John Gaines.  They 
already knew that he must have been involved with either 
Darrell Thomas or with Andre Gaines.  So this argument that 
somehow Ms. Jackson not mentioning John Gaines on July 7th, 
2020, is just incorrect.  He was already on their radar.  They 
were already investigating who he was.  
Let's go to the subpoena response.  And there are 
missing pages from this document.  And I'll just refer, 
there's an exhibit with this attached to the government's 
memorandum, so I don't need to introduce another exhibit.  
It's Document Number 994 and it's Exhibit, I think, -1.   And 
this would be Ms. Jackson's return.  It's several pages, the 
subpoena return.  And then it goes into the specific 
production requests.  And the production requests I would 
refer the Court to start at Roman Numeral V and go on from 
pages five through six.  And let's look at exactly what was 
asked of Ms. Jackson in this subpoena request.  
So H is referenced in that cover letter, maybe 
labeled as I.  All communications with the following 
individuals and/or entities.  I don't see John Gaines there 
anywhere.  There is a reference to Andre Gaines, and there's a 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 38 of 107

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
38
reference to Gaines Reservation & Travel.  John Gaines is not 
a founder or a co-owner of Gaines Reservation & Travel.  Andre 
Gaines owns that company.  John Gaines's name was not on the 
subpoena request, even though, according to Agent Stites, he 
was already on their radar. 
THE COURT:  So is the defense argument that although 
we know John Gaines was communicating with Ms. Jackson and 
depositing funds from Gaines Reservation & Travel to 
Ms. Jackson, is the argument that she shouldn't have 
interpreted that to include John Gaines -- 
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I'm going strictly by the 
subpoena. 
THE COURT:  I'm just clarifying if that's your 
argument. 
MR. MARSHALL:  My argument is what's on the subpoena. 
THE COURT:  That's a loser argument.  Move on. 
MR. MARSHALL:  All right.  That's not asked of Andre 
Gaines, she doesn't answer it.  
In her first interview, Judge, she is not asked 
anything about John Gaines.  She is asked about Andre.  She's 
asked questions about Gaines Reservation & Travel.  And she's 
asked about anyone she had contact with.  I forget the exact 
phrase, it's in the record.  But Andre Gaines was the person 
that was discussed by Agent Stites.  
And I point that out, Judge, because there was a 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 39 of 107

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
39
second interview done.  The first one was done on July 7th, 
2020.  The second one was done on July 27th, 2020.  And this 
is 20 days later.  And they -- Agent Stites comes over again 
with I think it was Agent Cromer and comes over specifically 
to the same residence, to Ms. Jackson's house, looking for 
John Gaines, they want to specifically talk to him.  He's not 
there at the time.  So they've gone over there, they want to 
see him and talk to him on that date.  
She mentions and answers all of his questions.  When 
they ask for him specifically, she says he's not here, he does 
stay here occasionally but he's not here now.  She's not 
untruthful at all.  The first interview she was never asked 
anything about this, Judge, so I would point that out.  
Now, as far as the subpoena and the cover letter 
being identical, again, Judge, I'm going to go back to Andre 
Gaines.  He is not here.  
THE COURT:  Couldn't you have called him here?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Well, for this, it's not my -- this is 
the government's burden, Judge. 
THE COURT:  I understand it's the government's 
burden.  The government is making its argument, but couldn't 
you have brought him here and said your declaration is a lie?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Well, Judge, it's not my burden to do 
that, and why would I need to do that?  I mean, it's not my 
burden, Judge, to do that.  I would have figured the 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 40 of 107

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
40
government would have done that in trial -- 
THE COURT:  Well, the government is meeting its 
burden with the declaration, so wouldn't you want to combat 
the declaration by bringing him in and cross-examining him?
MR. MARSHALL:  Does the Court believe they met the 
burden with the declaration?  
THE COURT:  No. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Okay.  All right.  I will say this 
about the declaration, Judge, if I can back up.  
THE COURT:  I'm just saying, I mean, it's odd for you 
to say they could have brought him here given the rules of a 
sentencing.  If you don't like the declaration and want to 
combat it, I would think that you would want to bring him here 
to cross-examine him to show that the government hasn't met 
its burden. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Well, Judge, sometimes a defense 
attorney wants to do this.  Other times they just want to say, 
you know what, this is improperly admitted evidence because of 
hearsay and because of what I cite in my memorandum, and 
that's that you can't rely on hearsay evidence during a 
sentencing hearing so long as -- you can so long as the 
evidence has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its 
probable accuracy. 
THE COURT:  Do you think it has any reliability given 
that the two letters are obviously written by the same person, 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 41 of 107

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
41
the responsive letters?  
MR. MARSHALL:  We don't know who that is.  And one of 
them is signed by Andre Gaines. 
THE COURT:  I understand we don't know who the person 
is that wrote both of the letters, but would you agree that 
the same person wrote both of those letters?  
MR. MARSHALL:  They look similar.  They do look 
similar.  
THE COURT:  So you won't agree that the same person 
wrote both of those letters?  
MR. MARSHALL:  What I would say, Judge, is Andre 
Gaines signed one of them.  And Carla Jackson signed another 
one.  I think that's what both of the documents show to the 
Court.  
THE COURT:  You'll go only so far as they look 
similar?  
MR. MARSHALL:  They do look similar.  They're not 
signed by the same person, they're signed by different 
individuals.  
Now, if you go by the government when they're making 
their references in their memorandum that according to Andre 
Gaines's declaration hearsay statements, that he didn't sign 
these, that these were prepared and he had other people 
prepare this document, or he had Carla Jackson do it or John 
Gaines had Carla Jackson do it, we still don't have him here 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 42 of 107

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
42
to support the government's argument or to support any of the 
statements in the declaration.  And it's not my obligation to 
bring in Andre Gaines when I'm challenging a declaration that 
the government is relying on as hearsay in a sentencing 
hearing.  That would be my argument, Judge.  I don't have to 
bring in Andre Gaines if I think this is improper for -- 
THE COURT:  I didn't say you had to.  My statement 
was that your argument would be stronger if you had.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Right.  And the government's would 
have been stronger also if they had brought him in here and 
said did you have any communication with Ms. Jackson. 
THE COURT:  Agreed.  Agreed.
MR. MARSHALL:  The last argument I would say on that, 
I don't think the Court can rely on anything that's in the 
declaration that the government cites to because he is not 
here.  He is -- 
THE COURT:  I'm not persuaded by a lot of what you've 
said, but talk to me about the significant obstruction.  I 
think that's what I would like to hear more from you about and 
more from the government about.  
I understand that you've shown me part of the 
transcript where the agent was already aware of John Gaines 
when he first interviewed Ms. Jackson, but talk to me about 
how I would define "significant" or how this was or wasn't 
significant. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 43 of 107

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
43
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, that's not my burden.  So the 
government needs to put up a witness, like Agent Stites, and 
talk -- 
THE COURT:  Mr. Marshall, you're misunderstanding me.  
I'm not -- by asking you that question I'm not misconstruing 
the standard or whose burden it is.  I know well whose burden 
it is, Mr. Marshall.  What I'm trying to get to is whether or 
not it indeed was significant.  I'm asking you, as the defense 
attorney here -- presumably you think it wasn't significant, 
and so I'm asking you why it wasn't significant.  Please have 
no fear that I'm not confused about the burden.  
If you have an answer to my question, you can give 
it.  If you don't want to give me an answer, I'll hear from 
just the government. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Because I know of no evidence that 
shows it significantly delayed it.  That's all I can say, 
Judge.  We know that Agent Stites knew about John Gaines when 
he went to deliver the first subpoena on July 7th, 2020, and 
he knew him -- well, obviously probably before that date.  
So unless -- like I said, I don't have any evidence 
that the government's investigation was impeded by 
Ms. Jackson's knock-and-talk on July 7th, 2020, or her 
responses in not mentioning John Gaines when the government 
already knew about who John Gaines was. 
THE COURT:  So if I understood your argument it's 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 44 of 107

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
44
that you don't know whether it was significant or not?  
MR. MARSHALL:  I don't.  And I wouldn't know that 
unless Agent Stites got up here. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  Ms. Chaiken, let me hear from 
the government on that. 
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you, your Honor.  A few points on 
this.  
THE COURT:  Please answer that question first.
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes, your Honor.  So we're not relying 
on subsection (g) to the commentary, we are relying on 
subsection (c), which is producing or attempting to produce a 
false document or record during an official investigation, 
which is what happened here with the false letter that 
contained false information in response to the grand jury 
subpoena.  And the Court imposed an obstruction of justice 
enhancement on Darrell Thomas and on Gina Pyfrom Foster on the 
same basis, of producing a false document to the grand jury.  
I would note also, your Honor, that the guideline 
itself -- 
THE COURT:  So is the argument, then, that 
Mr. Marshall was taking me down a rabbit hole that you don't 
think you need to go down?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes, correct, your Honor, I -- 
THE COURT:  As to 4(g)?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes, your Honor.  4(g) relates to false 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 45 of 107

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
45
statements to law enforcement officers in interviews.  And as 
the Court knows in this case we have not argued for 
obstruction for any defendant based on lies that they have 
told to law enforcement, even though many of the defendants in 
this case have lied to law enforcement.  And when I stood up 
and made my argument just a few moments ago, I said, your 
Honor, we are relying on the false response to the grand jury 
subpoena.  
I do think, your Honor, that Ms. Jackson's lies here 
did more significantly obstruct the investigation in ways that 
some other defendants' interviews did not.  But, again, we 
have not relied on that.  We have relied on (c) because of the 
response to the grand jury subpoena.  And the guideline itself 
also refers to attempted to obstruct or impede.  So even 
under -- under (c), even if there was no significant impact on 
the investigation, that still would be sufficient.  
Just to address what Mr. Marshall said about our 
knowledge of John Gaines, yes, your Honor, we did know that 
John Gaines existed.  And, you know, without revealing too 
much about the course of the investigation, at the time -- at 
that time shortly before the indictment we knew that John 
Gaines knew Darrell Thomas.  We knew that John Gaines was 
somehow related to Andre Gaines in that he was on the bank 
accounts for Gaines Reservation & Travel.  And we knew that 
John Gaines had been married to Carla Jackson.  So we were 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 46 of 107

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
46
highly suspicious that John Gaines was somehow involved and 
was the person who connected all people around the PPP loans, 
but we did not have evidence at that point to support that 
beyond the circumstantial evidence to his connection to all of 
the people that were involved.  And that was part of why we 
went out and we did interviews and we sent out subpoenas 
because we wanted to collect the information to be able to 
make a determination about whether he was involved or about 
whether he introduced all these people who did something 
without his knowledge.  
The fact that somebody is connected to people who are 
involved in a crime does not mean they were involved in a 
crime.  And we cannot bring an indictment against someone 
because they used to be married to someone who got money into 
their account without evidence proving their knowledge, their 
intent, whatever is necessary for what we're charging. 
THE COURT:  Let me ask you another question. 
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  So it sounds like 4(g), which 
Mr. Marshall and I went back and forth on, is inconsequential.  
We also went back and forth a bit about Mr. Andre Gaines.  Is 
he important to your motion?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  No, your Honor.  As I said in my 
opening remarks, we're not relying on Andre Gaines or his 
declaration.  It doesn't matter who drafted the grand jury 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 47 of 107

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
47
subpoena response.  What matters is that Ms. Jackson signed 
and e-mailed to the grand jury a document she knew was false 
and that she knew omitted communications between her and 
Gaines Reservation & Travel.  And to this day we still don't 
know what communications she had in full with Gaines 
Reservation & Travel related to these payments because all she 
admitted at trial is one excerpt that she chose to show the 
jury.  
But, you know, the fact that Andre Gaines said she 
drafted both is really not consequential.  What is 
consequential is that she knowingly sent to the grand jury a 
document that she knew was false.  
THE COURT:  All right.  Just so I can get to the 
bottom of how the Gaines -- Andre Gaines's declaration was 
even entered into this discussion, then, you objected to the 
PSR because it didn't contain this obstruction enhancement.  
And did you submit the Gaines's declaration or did the 
defense?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  We submitted it, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  When did you submit it and in 
which document or which filing?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  I believe that it was with our 
objections.  
Officer Ridley, is that -- no?
THE COURT:  I'm just confused about the Andre 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 48 of 107

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
48
Gaines's declaration because Mr. Marshall will stand up and 
say, ah-ha, the government hasn't produced them, all they have 
is a declaration.  And I asked him, well, you could have 
called him, too.  He took offense to that.  
I'm trying to get to the bottom about who introduced 
the Gaines's declaration first and where is it?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Your Honor, I'm not sure if the 
Gaines's declaration was given to Officer Ridley in connection 
with another defendant, or when it was given to her.  I'm 
certain I gave it to her at some point.  At least I assume I 
did.  
So it looks like I gave it with my objections.  And 
it's a detail, your Honor, and it is something that we 
provided.  And after seeing the attack on even the 
consideration of the declaration, you know, we realized we 
were not -- the heart of our request for the obstruction 
enhancement was not dependent on that.  I do think it's an 
additional thing that the Court can look at.  
And, again, I think it's clear from the face of both 
responses that the same person drafted both letters. 
THE COURT:  All right.  The issue is, and as I'm -- 
you noted that you included the declaration in your objections 
to the PSR.  I have -- in the PSR I've been given, I have page 
34 is objections by the government and the defense.  And then 
attached to that is a two-page letter from the government and 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 49 of 107

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
49
a three-page letter from Mr. Marshall on behalf of 
Ms. Jackson, but it's not attached there.  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Your Honor, Mr. Marshall showed me what 
I believe is my original letter that I submitted with the 
objections.  That did look to have that attachment, the 
declaration as an attachment.  So it looks like that was not 
appended into the PSR. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  So I don't have it.  I've been 
reading about this declaration and whether or not it's 
important or not important and who should have called who, but 
nobody's ever actually -- and maybe it came in somehow in the 
trial as an exhibit or something, but I don't think it's been 
marked and I don't think it's in the record for this.  
Is it in the record anywhere that anyone knows of? 
MR. MARSHALL:  No, your Honor, it wouldn't have been.  
It would have been hearsay during trial, it wouldn't have come 
in.  I have it. 
THE COURT:  The point is I haven't even seen it yet 
because I don't think anyone's submitted it.  And it may have 
been that everyone assumed that anything attached to your 
letters would have made the PSR, but I don't think -- Officer, 
it's not in the PSR, is it?  
OFFICER RIDLEY:  No, your Honor.  It appears it was 
left off of the final PSR. 
MS. CHAIKEN:  We're happy to make it a part of the 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 50 of 107

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
50
record, your Honor.  I can e-mail a copy to Ms. Lee after this 
hearing or -- 
THE COURT:  Since we've now spent 20 minutes talking 
about it, I would like to actually see it. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, I have marked this as 
Defendant's Exhibit 3, as being possibly introduced.  I do 
have this if the Court wants to look at it.  
I tender this as Defendant's Exhibit 3 to the Court. 
THE COURT:  No objection, government?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  No, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  All right.  It's admitted.  
Give me a minute.  
(Pause in the proceedings.)
THE COURT:  All right.  I've now reviewed the 
declaration of Andre Lee Gaines, Defense Exhibit 3.  And I 
guess -- as I try to climb out of this rabbit hole, I guess I 
just need to know, you know, again, Ms. Chaiken, Mr. Marshall 
said the Gaines's declaration is bonk, and so I need to know 
whether or not you want me to consider the Gaines's 
declaration or not.  I mean, the part of it that's relevant 
here is -- the part of it that's -- well, probably more than 
that, but the primary part that's relevant is he says that 
Carla Jackson wrote his responsive letter for the subpoena.  
Do you want that evidence in or not?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Your Honor, we're not relying on that 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 51 of 107

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
51
evidence.  I would point the Court to page nine of our 
sentencing memo where we said, Ms. Jackson argues that the 
United States request for an obstruction of justice 
enhancement is premised on Andre Gaines and that the Court 
should require Andre Gaines to testify before imposing an 
enhancement.  
Not so.  Jackson's attempts to obstruct and impede 
the investigation are evident from the face of her letter to 
the grand jury, the materials omitted from her grand jury 
subpoena response, and the contrary evidence presented at 
trial.  
While Andre Gaines's declaration establishes that 
Jackson drafted Management Resource's and Gaines Reservation's 
letters, Jackson's apparent challenge to that assertion is 
immaterial because it is evident from the letters themselves 
that the same person drafted both letters.  
In addition, Jackson produced her grand jury subpoena 
response from her personal e-mail address and with her 
signature.  To the extent she did not draft her letter, she 
still signed and submitted it to the grand jury knowing it 
contained falsehoods and concealed information and documents.  
So I think it was clear before today and, again, we 
reiterate we're not relying on anything Andre Gaines said to 
establish the obstruction enhancement. 
THE COURT:  All right.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 52 of 107

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
52
Mr. Marshall, do you want me to consider the Gaines's 
declaration?  
MR. MARSHALL:  No, your Honor, just as long -- if the 
government's position is they're not relying at all on it, 
then that's what concerned me because there were references to 
it in their sentencing memorandum, that's what I was objecting 
to, Judge, is when they made references to his declaration, 
so... 
THE COURT:  Well, I think Ms. Chaiken's now clarified 
if it wasn't clear before -- and I'm not sure it was based on 
the papers, she's now clarified in their argument that they're 
not relying on it.  You don't want me to rely on it either, so 
I won't consider the Gaines's declaration.  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Unless the Court has further 
questions -- 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you.
THE COURT:  So, Mr. Marshall -- and, Ms. Chaiken, 
it's your motion, I will give you the last word.  
Mr. Marshall, we went back and forth about some 
portions of 5(g), and I think my question might have offended 
you somehow, but I was actually curious about "significant," 
and I thought that might be your potential winner, that's why 
I was asking you about it.  But now it sounds like the 
government is saying it doesn't matter if it was significantly 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 53 of 107

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
53
obstructed or not because we're not relying on 5(g) -- or 
4(g), we're relying on 4(c).  What do you say to that?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Well, Judge, it's not laid out in the 
government's memorandum which part of -- they make no 
reference to the application notes and what they're relying 
on.  On that, Judge, I would say that I think that that 
probably addresses more things like where there's an actual -- 
as it says, like a counterfeit document, some type of altered 
document, a false document, I would still fall back, Judge, on 
her position that based on the subpoena that Ms. Jackson got, 
she answered the questions to the best of her ability.  If 
there had been a question about John Gaines specifically in 
there, because they knew about John Gaines, that she would 
have answered and provided documents if she needed to about 
that.  That's what I would say about that, Judge.  
This is not an altered document, it's not a 
counterfeit document.  And I think the only falsehood is that 
there was -- the government is alleging is that there's 
essentially information that was left out about John Gaines.  
And our position would be, Judge, they didn't ask about John 
Gaines, and he was not a founder of Gaines Reservation & 
Travel.  
THE COURT:  Ms. Chaiken, what was John Gaines's 
relationship with the company?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Your Honor, he was a signer on the bank 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 54 of 107

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
54
account.  And he was the one who was communicating with 
Ms. Jackson about the payments that were coming from Gaines 
Reservation & Travel to Management Resource Services.  He was 
essentially saying to her, we need to make another transfer to 
you from Gaines Reservation to Management Resource, what's 
your bank account number.  He was the one who delivered her a 
check from Gaines Reservation & Travel to Management Resource 
for her to deposit.  So his relationship to Gaines Reservation 
& Travel was he was the only person she communicated with who 
had anything to do with Gaines Reservation & Travel.  And I 
believe Mr. Gaines's testimony at trial was that Ms. Jackson 
barely knew Andre Gaines.  So that was her sole link to Gaines 
Reservation & Travel based on the evidence. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you.  
I'm going to grant the government motion as to the 
obstruction enhancement.  I think 4(c) of the comments is 
applicable here as far as production of a false document in an 
investigation.  I think her response to the subpoena was 
false.  That response -- when she was asked for all 
communications with the following individual and/or entities, 
that list included number 12, Gaines Reservation & Travel, 
LLC.  She responded to that question that in-person 
communications were held with Andre Gaines, Gaines Reservation 
& Travel, LLC, mentioned no communications with John Gaines, 
and specifically did not mention or produce the text message 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 55 of 107

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
55
to Mr. Gaines that was put into evidence at the trial.  So 
clearly that response was false.  The question clearly asked 
not only -- the subpoena clearly asked for communications not 
only regarding Andre Gaines but also separately from Andre 
Gaines, Gaines Reservation & Travel, LLC.  John Gaines was 
intimately involved with Gaines Reservation & Travel vis-a-vis 
the facts of this case.  
All right.  And so the record's clear, I'm not 
considering the declaration of Andre Lee Gaines, and I'm 
making no finding about the significance of the obstruction 
under 4(g) of the commentary of 3C1.1.  
And I would note that I find that Ms. Jackson did, 
indeed, sign and send the responsive subpoena response letter.  
And I need make no finding as to who drafted the letter that 
Mr. Gaines sent to make my finding as to obstruction vis-a-vis 
Ms. Jackson.  Nor do I even need to find that she wrote the 
letter that she sent, but she did sign it and send it, that 
much is clear.  
All right.  I believe that addresses any guideline 
objection issues.  Does everyone agree?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes, your Honor. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  I'll, therefore, adopt the findings of 
fact and conclusions of law in the presentence report to which 
no objection has been made.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 56 of 107

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
56
And as to the objections, several of those have been 
withdrawn by the defense, but the two that were active 
involved mitigating role and obstruction.  And I have denied 
the request for mitigating role, and I've granted the request 
for obstruction.  
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law 
the guideline calculations are as follows:  
And, Ms. Ridley, feel free to jump in if I muck 
something up, but I think I've got this right based on my 
rulings.  
Offense level of 20;
Adjusted offense level of 24;
Total offense level of 22; 
Criminal History Category of I; 
Custody guideline range of 41 to 51 months; 
Fine range of 15,000 to $670,476.44, twice the loss; 
Supervised release of one to three years; 
And restitution of $335,238.22.  
Is that correct, Officer Ridley?  
OFFICER RIDLEY:  Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Any objection to the guideline 
calculations as stated by the Court?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  No, your Honor. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Subject to -- 
THE COURT:  Other than what's been previously stated?  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 57 of 107

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
57
MR. MARSHALL:  No, your Honor, not other than that. 
THE COURT:  I'll now hear from the parties as to 
recommendations for a reasonable sentence concerning the 18 
USC, Section 3553(a) factors.  
I have reviewed, of course, the PSR, the memos from 
both the government and the defense and the separate packet of 
I think 68 pages or so of letters on behalf of the defendant.  
Are there any other documents or letters for the 
Court from either side?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Not from the government, your Honor. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Not from the defense, Judge.  We do 
have -- at some point we do have some witnesses that we 
alerted the Court to that would like to briefly address the 
Court.  I think we have about -- at least five people, Judge, 
no more than that. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Thank you, Mr. Marshall.  
Are there any victims present that wish to speak or 
present evidence in connection with the sentence in this case?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  No, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Mr. Marshall, I'll be happy to hear from 
your first witness. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Yes, your Honor.  
Mr. Smith, are you here?  
Angela Meyer, please.  
When you get to the microphone, just state your name 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 58 of 107

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
58
for the record and your relationship to Ms. Jackson and then 
tell the judge what you want to tell him. 
THE COURT:  One moment, ma'am.  
MS. DICKSON:  Hello, my name is -- 
THE COURT:  Oh, one moment, ma'am.  I'm sorry.  
Off the record for a moment. 
(Off-the-record discussion.)  
THE COURT:  All right.  Go ahead, please.  Back on 
the record. 
MS. DICKSON:  Thank you.  
Hello, my name is Angela Dickson, and I'm a dear 
friend of Carla Jackson. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Ms. Dickson, let me interrupt 
you.  Are you one of the people who wrote a letter?  
MS. DICKSON:  I'm sorry?  
THE COURT:  Did you write a letter as well?  
MS. DICKSON:  No. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  Go ahead. 
MS. DICKSON:  My name is Angela, as I mentioned.  And 
I'm a dear friend of Carla Jackson.  She and I have been 
friends since middle school.  We go way back to our hometown 
of Indiana.  
I just want to let you know who Carla is to me.  
Carla has always been a dear friend we could always call on, 
we could always count on as far as giving us positive feedback 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 59 of 107

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
59
on how to be a better person in life.  Carla's always been a 
person that you could call on to ask for advice when you're 
falling apart, because I've fallen apart many of times and 
Carla has helped me get back together.  
Carla Jackson has always been a person who upholds 
justice.  She upholds liberty.  She upholds dignity.  She's 
the kind of person that we need in society.  She is the kind 
of person who helps feed the homeless.  She is the kind of 
person who is a sister to people who have no sisters.  She's 
the kind of a person who is a mother to people who have no 
mother.  Carla Jackson is the person that we need out in 
society.  
I ask that you please, I beg that you please have 
mercy on my friend because she is not the person that the 
prosecutor has presented her to be.  She is the person that 
loves to give and help.  She is the kind of person that helps 
mentor the youth.  We have put together a youth program.  
Carla Jackson has mentored the youth.  She has mentored us.  
She has been just an amazing person.  And I'm so sorry that 
she got caught up into whatever this whole thing is.  But the 
person that Carla Jackson is is the kind of person that you 
would want your son or your daughter to be affiliated with 
because she is just a good, humble person.  
I would not stand here, take my time off of work, 
miss out on traveling if I did not want you to really know 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 60 of 107

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
60
that Carla Jackson is the person that society needs.  And I 
ask that you please have mercy on my friend. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, Ms. Dickson.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Arlisher Jones.  
Same thing, when you address the judge, just give 
your full name and what your relationship is to Ms. Jackson 
and tell the judge what you want. 
MS. SWAN:  Your Honor, my name is Arlisher Jones Swan 
actually.  Carla Jackson and I have been friends -- 
THE COURT:  Let me interrupt you.  I'm probably going 
to ask everybody the same question.  Are you one of the people 
who wrote a letter?  
MS. SWAN:  No, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Thank you.  
And, Mr. Marshall, maybe you can help me out.  Is 
anybody that's going to testify, have they also written a 
letter?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Just one second, Judge, I'll confirm 
that.   
THE COURT:  Go ahead, Mr. Marshall, I think you were 
going to give me a list. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, the only two -- I had given you 
a list.  Venita McCollum, Ms. McCollum had written a letter.  
And Tammy Moore is here, she has written a letter also.  
They're the only two that would like to speak today who have 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 61 of 107

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
61
also wrote letters, Judge.  
THE COURT:  When you get to them, I may have you tell 
me which page it is of your 68-page document so I can find it 
quickly.  I'll go ahead and hear from Ms. Jones first.
Ma'am, go ahead. 
MS. SWAN:  Yes, your Honor.  Once again, my name is 
Arlisher Jones Swan.  I've known Carla for over 35 years.  We 
grew up together in a small town in Indiana.  Carla and I 
relocated here before we graduated from high school.  I was 
shocked and surprised that she was moving her senior year as 
well.  But I was very pleased.  If I could have picked anyone 
to move here with me, it would have been Carla.  
We managed to speak several times during our senior 
year.  And she was on one side of town, and I was on the 
other, but it was a great comfort to me to know that I had 
someone who was such a good friend on the other side of town 
that I could count on.  
Through the years Carla and I have reconnected 
through service.  We have served through mentoring groups  
Ms. Dickson mentioned.  We also have been part of a book club.  
We've traveled together.  She's helped mentor my children.  My 
children often joke -- I have five -- that they wish that 
Ms. Jackson was their legitimate aunt instead of just someone 
that they just call aunt.  She is very kind.  She is very 
loyal.  She is a person that I am very, very grateful to call 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 62 of 107

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
62
a friend.  
Your Honor, I would ask that you would look upon her 
with mercy.  I would ask that you would look upon her with 
kindness.  
And I would ask, Lord -- as well, your Honor, that 
you would give her an opportunity to right this wrong on the 
outside as opposed to on the inside, your Honor.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, ma'am.  
So are you from Gary, Indiana?
MS. SWAN:  Yes, sir, I am.
THE COURT:  I read a lot about Gary, Indiana, over 
the last couple days.  And I'm betting half the people in the 
gallery are from Gary, Indiana, or something.  
MS. SWAN:  Yes, sir. 
THE COURT:  I feel like I need to ask what part of 
Indiana is Gary, Indiana?
MS. SWAN:  Gary, Indiana, is in the northwest part of 
Indiana, approximately 20 minutes outside of Chicago, 
Illinois.  It is considered a bedroom community of Chicago 
right now.  It is comprised of hard-working, middle class 
individuals.  It is a steel mill town.  And we are lakefront, 
we sit on the corner of Lake Michigan. 
THE COURT:  Nice certain parts of the year, I bet, 
but maybe not so nice in others. 
MS. SWAN:  Harsh winters, sir. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 63 of 107

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
63
THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well, thank you.  I've had 
the pleasure or displeasure of being to Cleveland.  I've not 
been to Gary, Indiana, in the winter months, but I went to 
Cleveland once -- 
MS. SWAN:  Very similar in weather. 
THE COURT:  -- and I was wishing I hadn't been there 
in the winter.  
All right.  Thank you.
MR. MARSHALL:  Venita McCollum.  
Judge, I'll have to apologize.  I submitted that as a 
composite exhibit, so I -- 
THE COURT:  That's okay.  I'll flip through and find 
McCollum.  I'm just trying to get context of the letters when 
people talk, so I'll find it real quick.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Ms. McCollum, we'll let the judge go 
through those.  He has a lot of letters to look through. 
And the other one is Tammi Moore, Judge, that's the 
other one.
THE COURT:  Would you believe it's on pages 67 and 68 
of your 68-page filing?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Were you able to see Tammi Moore also?  
THE COURT:  I can only do one thing at a time.  As 
you know, I was looking for just Ms. McCollum's.  So let me 
look back through my notes of that letter before I hear from 
you, Ms. McCollum. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 64 of 107

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
64
MS. MCCOLLUM:  Okay. 
MR. MARSHALL:  I apologize, Judge.  I didn't put them 
as separate exhibits. 
THE COURT:  No, it's fine.  It's fine.  I found it.  
Okay.  
Ms. McCollum, good afternoon.  How are you?  
MS. MCCOLLUM:  Good afternoon.  I'm well. 
THE COURT:  I read your letter, and I would be happy 
to hear from you now in more detail.  
MS. MCCOLLUM:  Okay.  I'm going to keep it sweet and 
simple.  
I, too, am from Gary, Indiana.  And Carla and I have 
been friends since sixth grade.  And I do considered her my 
very best friend.  
Carla has been with me all of my life and most of my 
adult life.  And I can't believe at 56 years old we are here 
begging for her mercy.  But we are glad to be here and stand 
in the gap for her because she is, first of all, a woman of 
God, a woman who lives a very Godly life, a woman that we are 
very proud of.  Someone that we call sister.  Someone that my 
kids also can call auntie.  She's been there through both of 
my births.  She's been there for me through a divorce, through 
the death of both of my parents, through the loss of jobs, 
through bachelor's degrees, through working on a master's 
degree.  She's been my support, and I have, too, been hers.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 65 of 107

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
65
And there's so much we can say about Carla.  She is a 
confidant, a good friend.  She's works in the ministry with us 
at church.  She feeds the homeless.  She helps the needy.  She 
works in after-school programs.  And we have come a very long 
way.  
And Carla has always been the one who has always had 
it together at a very early age.  She worked at McDonald's 
very young from the front counter to management.  She worked 
for the McDonald's Corporation.  She has given over 25-plus 
years to IBM Corporation.  Her credit is impeccable.  Her 
home, has owned her home for several years.  And has also 
maintained very good credit.  I don't think my friend would 
want to give all of that away and -- for this foolishness.  
I just beg of you that you find it in your heart to 
find leniency on her and that she can have probation because 
Carla is someone that needs to be in the community to continue 
doing the good work that she has done this far in life. 
THE COURT:  Ma'am, thank you.
MS. MCCOLLUM:  Thank you.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Tammi Moore.  
Judge, page 59 in the exhibit number. 
THE COURT:  Thank you whoever found that.  
Ma'am, hello.  Give me one minute.  I want to look 
back over your letter before I hear from you, okay?  
MS. MOORE:  Yes, sir. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 66 of 107

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
66
THE COURT:  Ma'am, I had a notation from your letter, 
I've got a little star by it.  I think you've got the best 
street name maybe I've ever heard in my entire life.  
Anybody else knows what street her business is on or 
lives on?  Sly Fox Run.  That's outstanding.  
MS. MOORE:  Thank you.  
THE COURT:  I'm imaging some wonderful little country 
lane with wildlife prancing around.  
Is it like that?  
MS. MOORE:  No, not at all.  But it is a subdivision. 
THE COURT:  Maybe it was long ago when they named it 
Sly Fox Run.  
MS. MOORE:  Yeah. 
THE COURT:  Go ahead.  Tell me a little bit more 
about how you know Ms. Jackson. 
MS. MOORE:  Yes.  Thank you, your Honor, and the 
distinguished members of the court.  I just want to share some 
words to help you understand who Carla really is.  
She has just been a model citizen.  I know from me 
when I moved to Georgia in 2003 and we all came together from 
Gary, Indiana, we started a women's book club.  And through 
that book club and under the leadership of Carla we were able 
to start feeding the homeless, as you heard before.  We 
actually started a teens group called Teens with a Dream under 
her leadership to help children just navigate through life and 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 67 of 107

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
67
navigate through crisis.  As a matter of fact, some of them 
showed up today, called off of work, some of the teenagers 
that she's poured into.  
She hasn't had any children of her own, but she's 
been a mother to so many kids.  She's just been a beacon of 
light.  She's been a model citizen, helped me be a better 
person in corporate America.  She helped me to understand the 
importance of cleaning up my credit score and even to be a 
better person just as a wife and a mother.  
My husband and I started a coaching program, and we 
help people start transportation companies.  And we've helped 
over 700 people start transportation companies through her 
guidance, riding with us shotgun every step of the way, 
helping us understand how to run a business and to be 
successful and how to give back.  
And I think about why would she, someone that's spent 
all her life building such a successful life, successful 
career, just throw all this away?  So it defies the odds.  
It's not who Carla really is, your Honor.  
What I know for sure is that in every family 
throughout generations the Lord identifies one or two souls 
within the family to help break generational curses, to change 
the whole trajectory of the family's life, to change zip 
codes, to pour into people.  And she is the one that God has 
chosen, not only in her family, but in the community to make a 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 68 of 107

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
68
difference.  
And I ask God -- your Honor -- I'm sorry, I just 
called you God.  
I just ask, your Honor, if you would have leniency on 
her.  Again, probation, something that she can still -- she 
can still be on the outside helping and giving back to the 
community, because what we're hearing today and what we've 
heard so far is just not Carla Jackson.  
As I close, I'm just wanted to say, just think about 
it, if you had a child or spouse or someone who was close to 
you that was going through something, going through a 
challenge, suffering through life, and you happen to go on 
Google looking for the best life coach, the best counselor, 
someone that could pour into them and help them change their 
whole trajectory of their life, you would find Carla Jackson 
in that Google search.  I'm talking about the poster child in 
the Google search.  
So I just ask that you have leniency on her, 
probation.  This is the first time of her ever being in court, 
ever being in trouble.  And I can rest assure to you that this 
will never happen again.  
Thank you, your Honor, and I thank you for this 
opportunity to speak. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, ma'am. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, those are all the witnesses 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 69 of 107

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
69
that wanted to make a statement.  It's possible Ms. Jackson 
wants to make a brief statement, Judge.
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
Yeah, usually I'll hear from her after I hear from 
you, so we'll wait on that one for now. 
Mr. Marshall, I'm happy to hear from you now.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Sure, Judge.  
You already have the memorandum that we submitted and 
you have the government's, your Honor.  I think I just want to 
make some general comments, your Honor.  
I know the unusual posture that this is in because I 
know one of the statements in the government's memorandum is 
that Ms. Jackson hasn't shown remorse or admitted 
responsibility, accepted responsibility.  And, obviously, 
we're in a -- she went to trial.  She obviously has a right to 
go to jury trial, exercise that constitutional right.  And the 
jury found the government's evidence sufficient to meet their 
burden.  So it's a -- I'm in a tough spot, your Honor, because 
this is probably -- you know, I don't always get defendants 
where I believe that the jury may have gotten it wrong, 
different evidence.  But I truly respect what the jury found, 
your Honor, I have to do that.  
I would just say, your Honor, for all the purposes 
like -- I know there's a general deterrence purpose that has 
to be for the greater public.  There certainly no specific 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 70 of 107

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
70
deterrence that is needed for Ms. Jackson.  I would bet the 
Court would probably agree that they would not see Ms. Jackson 
back here ever again for anything.  
She's gone her entire life without any criminal 
history convictions or any kind of interactions with law 
enforcement.  She's lead a successful life and career.  You 
have a copy of her resume that I submitted as part of the 
memorandum.  She's done very, very well.  
I will tell the Court, even in all my calls with 
Ms. Jackson, it sounds like a defense attorney kind of being 
managed by a manager because I'll get kind of repeat messages 
or text messages or e-mails to remind me, when are we going to 
meet, let's do a Zoom meeting, what would be the agenda, what 
are we going to go over.  So she's very organized and on top 
and that's probably from her decades of experience working for 
these types of companies.  So it's a shock to see her in this 
position, Judge.  
The 3553(a) factors under Title 18, Judge, the nature 
and circumstances of the offense, obviously it's a serious 
charge.  All of the charges in this indictment are serious.  
They have to be addressed.  We do not dispute that at all.  
The history and characteristics of the defendant, I 
think we've put forth amply a lot of letters attesting to 
Ms. Jackson's good character and background and how this is 
absolutely an anomalous result in her life for who she is.  So 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 71 of 107

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
71
that is addressing factor one under A(1).  
A(2), the need for the sentence imposed to reflect 
the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law 
and to provide just punishment for the offense.  Again, we're 
going to get into this discussion about what is proper.  Is a 
custody sentence appropriate?  Should it be within the 
guidelines?  Is probation an option?  Is some mixed type of 
sentence available?  Those are things I may just address at 
the very end of this statement, Judge.  
To afford adequate deterrence, we've talked about 
that a little bit.  I made a reference in there as far as 
general deterrence, Judge, that there are now additional 
controls in place for at least the PPP loan program.  I know 
that Ms. Jackson was not charged with PPP loan fraud, but 
those are in place so it makes it much more difficult for 
offenders to come out and procure these types of illegal and 
begotten gains, like Darrell Thomas did, like John Gaines did, 
to submit these applications.  We know it's serious, though, 
Judge.  But we'll address also, I think she's been adequately 
deterred.  
And probation, I do remind, Judge, whether it's an 
option for the Court or not, it does have -- it is a serious 
restriction on somebody's liberty.  The United States Supreme 
Court I think in Gall v. United States actually addressed 
that.  It is not something without severe restrictions on what 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 72 of 107

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
72
somebody can do with their life.  And if it's coupled with 
something like a home detention-type sentence, you can't go 
anywhere without informing probation or supervision officers.  
You can only do certain things.  You have to report on a 
certain -- a regular basis.  You're restricted obviously on 
the things you can do outside.  You can't travel without 
permission.  Lots of special conditions that can be imposed on 
somebody so that their liberty is not free.  It is restricted.  
And probation is what it is.  It's a suspended prison sentence 
to see if somebody can do well and perform well.  And if they 
don't, that probation is taken away and they go into custody.  
To afford adequate deterrence, to protect the public 
from further crimes of the defendant.  Judge, I don't see that 
happening.  I would doubt that the government's going to argue 
that she will be a future threat.  
Educational or vocational training, that's not really 
relevant here, Judge.  
The kinds of sentences available.  We'll talk about 
that a little bit more, the sentencing ranges.  
Let me go into the next factor.  Factor 6, to 
avoid -- the need to avoid unwanted sentence disparities among 
the defendants with similar records who have been found guilty 
of similar conduct.  
Well, I did want to point out, again, Andre Gaines -- 
I know that the government listed only one defendant in this 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 73 of 107

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
73
overall case that received a probation sentence.  I'm assuming 
they're referring to Andre Gaines because of his health 
background.  He did get a five-year sentence.  And, obviously, 
he was involved more so than just the false statement, Judge, 
although certainly controlled, I think, by John Gaines.  
Restitution.  Obviously restitution needs to be paid.  
And that would be done by a sentence that gets Ms. Jackson out 
sooner rather than later.  
Your Honor, I think I remember asking the -- and this 
is back on me.  I know the Court will remind me, the jury's 
verdict is in.  In my closing argument I made a statement to 
the jury, I said, you know -- I came up after Ms. Chaiken's 
argument and I said, you know, it's kind of interesting, why 
would this woman go through all these decades of successful 
work, going up to the top levels of project management, 
working 20 years, 17, 20 years for IBM, doing all this, at the 
time she had a current job, a job that was paying her, I 
think, $144,000 a year, was not in financial straits, anything 
of that nature, just decide on a whim to commit money 
laundering.  And it just -- I tried to get the argument across 
to the jury, they didn't agree, was that, well, because that's 
not common sense, it's not logical that someone would do that 
with that kind of background and do something like that.  What 
is more logical is that she was lied to on a regular basis by 
her ex-husband, Mr. John Gaines.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 74 of 107

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
74
And we know from the testimony in the trial that we 
got out other frauds that he had been doing for years and 
years before -- my client knew nothing about, other types of 
frauds, credit card fraud, license, ID documents.  Nothing.  
And yet she was married to this man for quite a long time.  
And I think people may ask sometimes, how can someone 
this smart, this type level, be involved with someone like 
this?  Well, who knows why we end up picking some partners 
sometimes, Judge, but people can get fooled by people that 
they're close to and in close relationships and not realize 
really who they are until decades later.  I say all that, and 
I don't mean to get the ire of the Court, we respect the 
finding of the jury.  
Judge, I just ask before Ms. Jackson makes a 
statement to just consider all the sentencing options.  I know 
she went to trial.  I know that probation in that context may 
be a stretch.  And I'll just be honest about that because 
normally you do not get acceptance of responsibility and 
there's some type -- it's not really a trial penalty but 
there's something that goes along with that, with making that 
decision to go forward in trial.  
But I would just ask the Court to, you know,  
consider everything that she's done and to impose something -- 
probation, possibly home detention.  Or if the Court is going 
to order detention, make it as low as possible so that all of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 75 of 107

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
75
these people, the 40 people -- honestly, Judge, I could have 
gotten you close to 100 letters from other individuals that 
know Ms. Jackson.  It's not just 40.  That's the largest 
number of support letters I have ever had in any of my cases.  
So she is well loved in her community by everyone here and all 
the other people who didn't show up today.  
So I think a sentence could be fashioned, Judge, to 
where if the Court wants custody, it can be a very low amount, 
maybe coupled with home detention, maybe some probation.  But 
we would ask the Court to consider that instead of just a 
guideline sentence, your Honor.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, Mr. Marshall.  
We've been going a good while, I think we should take 
a break before I hear from Ms. Jackson and the government.  
All right.  Let's take about a five-, ten-minute 
break.
(After a recess at 2:51 p.m., the proceedings 
continued at 3:02 p.m. as follows:) 
THE COURT:  Ms. Jackson, I've had the benefit of 
hearing from your counsel, but if there's anything you would 
like to personally say before I sentence you this afternoon, I 
would be happy to hear from you now, ma'am.  
THE DEFENDANT:  Thank you, your Honor.  And I'm just 
nervous and terrified, so I'm going to just read from 
something I wrote so I don't lose my points, if you don't 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 76 of 107

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
76
mind.  
Your Honor, thank you for allowing me an opportunity 
to speak.  I do stand before you with a heavy heart, aware of 
the gravity of this case and the impact of all the defendants' 
actions.  
I am deeply sorry for the adverse impact and 
disruption to the financial institutions and government 
resources.  
I exercised my right to a jury trial.  The verdict 
from the trial was, unfortunately, not ruled in my favor, but 
I do accept and respect the jury's decision.  
Prior to your sentencing ruling, I ask for the Court 
to consider the broader picture of who I am and my existing 
contributions to society.  I am an active member of my 
community, and I embrace the opportunity to learn, teach, 
mentor and encourage personal and professional development, 
especially among young adults.  
Since this entire matter and after my employment 
ended, I did enroll in Georgia Film Academy hoping to reinvent 
myself because my life as I knew it has significantly changed.  
I serve as a volunteer to assist small businessowners 
in business operations and process development.  I am 
currently assisting Park Equity Group, LLC, with budget and 
expense tracking and development of operational procedures for 
residential purchases, renovations and sales.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 77 of 107

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
77
I am a volunteer events coordinator and culinary team 
member at the Faith Center.  I lead a weekly discipleship 
Bible study group.  I currently assist with daycare for my 
great nephew who, unfortunately, we found out shortly after he 
was born has some health challenges.  I take him to physical 
and occupational therapy appointments.  
I established quite a few training and job lead 
connections at WorkSource DeKalb with an opportunity for 
future employment opportunities.  I work with Ms. Bria 
Peterson who is a liaison at WorkSource DeKalb through 
Goodwill and their job fairs.  
I created a nonprofit for Sheldon and Tammi Moore, 
which Tammi Moore spoke today, called the House of Mana.  And 
the mission of that nonprofit is to help rehabilitate and 
transition ex-offenders and the underserved with transitional 
housing and support, including job training to increase 
self-sufficiency and mature their independence post-release.  
Your Honor, I do humbly plead for your mercy for a 
lenient sentence.  I know a lot has transpired and your mercy 
and belief at my potential to make amends will grant me the 
opportunity to begin restitution, continue to positively 
contribute to society and rebuild my life.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Thank you, ma'am.  And you have my 
condolences.  I read about Anthony and what happened. 
THE DEFENDANT:  Thank you.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 78 of 107

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
78
MR. MARSHALL:  Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT:  Ms. Chaiken, does the government have a 
response?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Go ahead.  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you, your Honor.  
Your Honor, we have read the more than three dozen 
character letters that Ms. Jackson submitted.  And we've heard 
the supporters who spoke here today as well as Ms. Jackson's 
own words.  And all of that paints a picture of a person who 
has an incredible amount of support and who is tremendously 
valued by the community she's been a part of throughout her 
life.  And I'm going to talk more about those letters shortly.  
Under the 3553(a) factors the Court needs to balance 
Ms. Jackson's history and characteristics along with the other 
important Section 3553(a) factors.  And here we believe that  
a low-end guideline sentence appropriately balances 
Ms. Jackson's history and characteristics as well as the 
seriousness of the offense, the need to afford adequate 
deterrence, the need to promote respect for the law and 
provide just punishment, and the need to avoid unwarranted 
sentencing disparities.  
Your Honor, I don't normally start with history and 
characteristics, I normally start with seriousness of the 
offense, but today I would like to start with Ms. Jackson's 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 79 of 107

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
79
history and characteristics.  
I'm sure the Court no doubt remembers many of the 
compelling history and characteristics presented by some of 
the other defendants in this case, but there's no doubt that 
Ms. Jackson's sentencing presentation is unique in the volume 
and in the breadth of the character letters that she submitted 
and in the support that she has.  
Her letters included letters from family members, 
from friends, from high school classmates, from book club 
members, from mentees, from colleagues and others.  And one 
letter in particular that I thought was very notable and very 
admirable was the letter from Mr. Gaines's ex-wife that 
praised Ms. Jackson's participation in raising her stepson.  
These character letters as a whole praise 
Ms. Jackson's virtues and her contributions to her community 
and they show the tremendous support that she has had over the 
years.  And the Court certainly should consider all of that in 
considering the Section 3553(a) factors.  
When I was reading the letters and thinking about the 
3553(a) factors, I was struck by the many similarities between 
Ms. Jackson and the defendant in United States v. Howard,    
28 F.4th 180, Eleventh Circuit 2022, which is cited throughout 
our brief.  That was a white collar case where the Eleventh 
Circuit reversed a defendant's sentence of probation with home 
confinement as being substantively unreasonable.  And there 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 80 of 107

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
80
were many independent reasons for that, but one of them is 
that the Court considered the defendant's history in isolation 
and without regard to the criminal conduct for which the 
defendant was convicted and the characteristics it revealed.  
The defendant in that case asked for probation when 
she had a guideline range of 78 to 97 months, and she 
submitted more than 50 letters, again, from people all 
throughout her community, and she had seven people speak on 
her behalf at sentencing.  And the Eleventh Circuit explained 
that the district court was absolutely correct to consider 
those letters and those oral statements which were strong and 
relevant evidence of the defendant's pre-criminal personal 
history and her personal characteristics.  But the district 
court was wrong in letting that factor outweigh all of the 
other factors that showed that a sentence of imprisonment   
was necessary to serve other important purposes of 
Section 3553(a).  
So here, of course, the Court should consider all  
the letters submitted by Ms. Jackson's supporters.  It should 
consider her many good deeds and the many virtues she's had 
throughout her life.  And in part because of what we've 
learned about Ms. Jackson's background through those letters 
we've chosen to recommend a sentence at the low end of the 
guideline range as opposed to the middle or the high end, 
which is what we often do after a defendant is convicted at 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 81 of 107

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
81
trial rather than after a guilty plea.  But we do believe that 
a low-end guideline sentence is necessary to account for other 
important Section 3553(a) factors.  
And before I move on to those, I just want to address 
a few other aspects of Ms. Jackson's history and 
characteristics that underscore why a low-end guideline 
sentence is appropriate here.  
The first is acceptance of responsibility.  As the 
Court knows, the government charged 24 people as part of this 
investigation and only two of them have gone to trial.  
Mr. Baptiste's case is, of course, still pending.  
Ms. Jackson was charged in August of 2020.  She had 
more than three-and-a-half years to accept responsibility for 
her offense before her trial.  And to put that in perspective, 
the very first defendant who pleaded guilty was Kahlil Green 
who was charged with Ms. Jackson on August 4th of 2020.  He 
pleaded guilty less than one month later on September 1st of 
2020.  He was sentenced to 41 months of imprisonment.  And he 
was released from his sentence before Ms. Jackson's trial even 
began.  
This Court has had many defendants before it in this 
case who have tearfully expressed remorse for their 
participation in the offense.  And some of them, I'm sure the 
Court remembers, strongly felt that they had been led into the 
offenses by other people, like Darrell Thomas or someone who 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 82 of 107

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
82
recruited them, but they nevertheless acknowledged their own 
role, their own wrongdoing and they committed to doing better.  
Jackson is one of only two defendants who has not 
done that, not just in the legal sense of not accepting 
responsibility by going to trial, but also in the practical 
sense of acknowledging any role that she had in what she did 
and in what happened here.  
And she continues to blame others.  She continues to 
blame John Gaines.  She blames the PPP program for being set 
up in a way that it invited fraud.  At trial she blamed Agent 
Stites for the way in which he interviewed her, which caused 
her to lie.  She has blamed everyone except for herself and 
the decisions that she has made.  And the Howard case, the 
Eleventh Circuit recognized a distinction between defendants 
who accept responsibility and those who don't.  They recognize 
that they're not similarly situated.  
The next aspect I would like to address is her 
education and professional background.  The Court has heard   
a lot about her education and how she was a successful 
professional woman and that has obviously contributed to the 
standing that she has in her community and the support that 
she has.  But, again, the Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Howard 
is instructive here because in that case the Court reiterated 
that it encourages district courts to keep in mind that 
criminals who have the education and training that enables 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 83 of 107

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
83
people to make a decent living without resorting to crime are 
more, rather than less, culpable than their desperately poor 
and deprived brethren in crime.  
And the Court in Howard recognized a risk in building 
in lower sentences for people who are of higher socioeconomic 
standing and, therefore, have more to lose by virtue of their 
conviction.  
Ms. Jackson had all of the education, all of the 
support, all of the professional training and all of the 
financial resources to say no to participating in this crime.  
And the fact that she participated anyway makes her more 
culpable, not less culpable, than some of the defendants in 
this case who acted out of sheer desperation and a perceived 
lack of options during the pandemic.  
One last aspect I would like to address is her lack 
of criminal history.  Ms. Jackson has a criminal history score 
of zero.  She, therefore, is in Criminal History Category I, 
and that category accounts for her lack of criminal history.  
But Ms. Jackson here has also received the benefit of 
Section 4C1.1 which took effect on November 1st of 2023.  And 
in that sense ironically Ms. Jackson's failure to accept 
responsibility has actually benefitted her because none of the 
other defendants in this case have gotten the benefit of 4C1.1 
other than I believe Ms. Pyfrom Foster who was sentenced right 
before that section took effect.  And so all of the other 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 84 of 107

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
84
defendants in this case with very limited exception have not 
gotten that additional two-level reduction that Ms. Jackson 
has gotten because her case has dragged on this long.  And 
that two-level reduction we think is another reason why the 
Court should not go beyond the low end of the guideline range 
and impose a further guideline variance.  
Moving on to the seriousness of the offense, your 
Honor.  Money laundering is obviously a very serious offense.  
It's punishable by 20 years in prison.  It makes a person 
inadmissible to the United States.  And it enables people who 
commit fraud to hide their money, to hide their own 
involvement in the crime and prevent their victims from 
recovering their money.  
The seriousness of the offense is exacerbated here 
given the context where the money that was being concealed was 
money that was meant for struggling businesses during an 
unprecedented global crisis.  And the person who concealed 
that money was a woman who was lucky enough to have a six 
figure job at that time and to not be struggling to stay 
employed during the pandemic.  
Of course, your Honor John Gaines is more culpable 
than Ms. Jackson in this offense.  The evidence that was 
presented at Ms. Jackson's trial showed that overwhelmingly, 
and we do not dispute that.  But as I said at trial and as 
I'll say again, Ms. Jackson is not here because John Gaines 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 85 of 107

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
85
asked her to help him hide PPP money.  She is here because she 
said yes.  She's here because when the FBI came knocking at 
her door, she chose to lie.  She's here because when she was 
asked to respond to a grand jury subpoena, she lied again.  
She's here because to this day she has refused to acknowledge 
any wrongdoing.  And it's likely that she would be in a very 
different position if on that day that the FBI came to her 
door she had told them that her ex-husband had asked her to 
take some money into her account and told them everything, but 
she did not do that.  So we believe the seriousness of the 
offense does not weigh in favor of a downward variance, your 
Honor.  
As far as the deterrence, your Honor, the Court knows 
the Eleventh Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the importance 
of general deterrence in white-collar cases because white- 
collar crimes are cool, collected, rational, they are not heat 
of the moment crimes.  And in her sentencing memo and in     
Mr. Marshall's comments today there was reference to the PPP 
program being set up in a way that was rife for fraud.  It had 
weak controls I think was what was said.  And Ms. Jackson 
argued that it was paradoxical for the government to claim a 
need for general deterrence because the government set up the 
program in this way.  
Now, first of all, Ms. Jackson was convicted of money 
laundering, not PPP fraud, and there's a need to deter money 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 86 of 107

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
86
laundering always.  Money launderers are operating all over 
the country and all over the world and continue to do so to 
enable fraudsters to hide money.  But even as to PPP fraud, 
this is not an argument that weighs against the very important 
need for deterrence.  
Essentially what Ms. Jackson is saying is that when 
people commit fraud against government programs, instead of 
punishing them what we should do is set up government programs 
that people cannot commit fraud against, that are fraud proof.  
And what that means is the next time there's a global pandemic 
or natural disaster like Hurricane Katrina or a national need 
for programs like Medicaid or Medicare, in order to prevent 
people from committing fraud the program should be set up with 
such stringent controls and such strict requirements that 
nobody will ever be able to commit fraud against it.  But, of 
course, the people who desperately need money from those aid 
programs won't be able to get it and won't be able to get it 
quickly because of all of those processes that are in place.  
And that is what is paradoxical.  That is what makes no sense.  
That's not the world we want to live in.  And it's not the 
world that the Eleventh Circuit recognizes is any kind of 
legitimate alternative to the system we have in place, which 
is one where general deterrence is critically important to 
deter this kind of crime.  
And, again, the fact that the PPP program may not be 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 87 of 107

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
87
the subject of fraud anymore, it doesn't exist anymore, 
doesn't lessen the need for general deterrence because there 
will be another government benefit program.  
And we've cited a case in our brief that had to do 
with COVID Economic Injury Disaster loan funding where the 
Eleventh Circuit said you still need to deter the next 
government program fraud, even if the specific government 
program fraud you defrauded doesn't exist anymore.  
We agree, your Honor, as to specific deterrence, but 
it's far less of a concern than general deterrence.  As we 
noted in our memo, we are concerned by the fact that 
Ms. Jackson was not deterred by the FBI coming to her door.  
That is normally a step that would make someone realize that 
they've done something they shouldn't have done, that they're 
not going to do it again, that they're going to remove 
themselves from the situation.  And that was not the effect it 
had on Ms. Jackson.  
Ms. Jackson lied.  And then she had weeks to prepare 
a grand jury subpoena response.  And she, again, lied.  And 
that does give us some pause, although I agree with   
Mr. Marshall that I will -- if I was a betting woman, I will 
bet I will not see her again, and I hope that's right.  But I 
think there is some need for specific deterrence here.  
I would also note as far as deterrence, your Honor, 
there's been some argument that Ms. Jackson has already lost 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 88 of 107

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
88
her career and that she is going to be a felon and that this 
has already deeply impacted her.  Those are arguments that 
were raised in the Howard case.  Again, the defendant in that 
case was a doctor, and she was going to lose her medical 
license and the Eleventh Circuit -- I'm sorry, the district 
court in that case thought that that was sufficient deterrence 
and that she and other doctors in the future would not commit 
this crime or would not commit this type of crime because  
they were going to lose their license and that was such a 
significant punishment that if that didn't deter them, nothing 
else would.  
And the Eleventh Circuit said you cannot reason away 
general deterrence in that way, that general deterrence is 
still important in those situations where someone is losing a 
professional license.  And that, if anything, giving someone a 
downward variance or reasoning away deterrence because they 
had a license to lose is really just giving someone a benefit 
because they are of that status in the first place, which 
would essentially just be giving a benefit to people of 
generally higher socioeconomic standing.  
Finally, as to unwarranted sentencing disparities, 
your Honor, Ms. Jackson is uniquely situated in this case.  
She is the only defendant in this case who was solely a money 
launderer as opposed to someone who participated in the 
underlying fraud.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 89 of 107

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
89
I would note, however, your Honor, that the Court has 
imposed guideline sentences on many of the defendants in this 
case.  Some defendants have received downward variances based 
on various circumstances, including past military service, 
familial caretaking responsibilities, extraordinary efforts 
towards payment of restitution before sentencing, medical 
conditions and other mitigating circumstances.  
But even Jesika Blakely and Megan Thomas who are, 
undoubtedly, incredibly sympathetic defendants, both of whom 
had young children at home, both of whom were motivated to 
commit their crimes by their romantic relationships with 
Darrell Thomas, both of them still received significant 
sentences of imprisonment.  And so we think that a sentence of 
probation for Ms. Jackson or anything other than a significant 
sentence of imprisonment would create unwarranted sentencing 
disparities to the extent that there are similarities between 
Ms. Jackson and other defendants in this case.  
For all of these reasons, your Honor, we ask the 
Court to consider and weigh the Section 3553(a) factors and  
to impose a sentence at the low end of the guidelines at 
41 months. 
THE COURT:  Thank you.  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Is there any other matter that the Court 
needs to take up or anything else from either side before I 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 90 of 107

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
90
issue a sentence in this case?
MS. CHAIKEN:  No, your Honor.  Thank you. 
MR. MARSHALL:  No, Judge.  
THE COURT:  Ms. Jackson, if you'll please stand. 
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it's 
the judgment of the Court that you, Carla Jackson, are hereby 
committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to 
be imprisoned for a term of 36 months custody.  
Ma'am, you can be seated while I read to you the rest 
of your sentence.
MR. MARSHALL:  Yes, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  You must pay to the United States a 
special assessment of $100 due immediately.  
The Court finds that you do not have the ability to 
pay a fine and cost of incarceration.  The Court will, 
therefore, waive the fine and cost of incarceration in this 
case.  
Restitution in the amount of $335,238.22 is owed 
jointly and severally with Darrell Thomas, Andre Gaines, John 
Gaines, Jesika Blakely and Teldrin Foster to the following 
victims:  
Cross River Bank in the amount of $325,181.07;
And the Small Business Administration DFC in the 
amount of $10,057.15.  
Restitution shall be paid in full immediately.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 91 of 107

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
91
You must pay the above-noted financial penalties in 
accordance with the schedule of payments sheet of the 
judgment.  
Payment of criminal monetary penalties is due during 
the period of imprisonment.  All criminal monetary penalties 
except those made through the Federal Bureau of Prison's 
Inmate Financial Responsibility Program are to be made payable 
to the Clerk of the US District Court, 2211 US Courthouse, 
75 Ted Turner Drive, Southwest, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303.  
Any balance that remains unpaid at the commencement 
of the terms of supervision shall commence within 60 days 
after release of imprisonment on the following terms:  
Payable at a rate of no less than $500 monthly to the 
US District Court Clerk.  You must notify the Court of any 
changes in economic circumstances that might effect the 
ability to pay this financial penalty.  
The Court determines that you do not have the  
ability to pay interest, and it's ordered that the interest 
requirement is waived for restitution.  
Upon release from imprisonment you'll be on 
supervised release for a term of two years.  
You must comply with the mandatory conditions of 
release.  
You must not commit another federal, state or local 
crime.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 92 of 107

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
92
You must not unlawfully possess a controlled 
substance.  
You must refrain from any unlawful use of a 
controlled substance.  
You must submit to one drug test within 15 days of 
release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests 
thereafter as determined by the Court.  
You must cooperate in the collection of DNA as 
directed by the probation officer.  
You must make restitution in accordance with 18 USC 
Sections 3663 and 3663(A) or any other statute authorizing a 
sentence of restitution.  
As part of your supervised release, you must comply 
with the standard conditions of supervision which have been 
adopted by this Court and are incorporated by reference.  
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 the judgment.  
You must comply with the following special conditions 
during the term of supervised release:  
You must make full and complete disclosure of your 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 93 of 107

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
93
finances and submit to an audit 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 
US Attorney's Office.  
You must not incur new credit charges or open 
additional lines of credit without the approval of the 
probation officer.  
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, to 
protect the public and to provide the defendant with needed 
educational training, medical care or other correctional 
treatment;
The kinds of sentences available;
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;
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 94 of 107

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
94
The need to avoid sentencing disparity; 
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 this is a just 
and appropriate sentence.  
I considered all of the 3553(a) factors, but I want 
to focus on a few of them in particular.  
First off is the history and characteristics of    
the defendant.  What I learned from Mr. Marshall from your 
submissions as well as from the letters was pretty 
extraordinary.  I don't want to go into much detail of it.  
It's in the record.  But, you know, Ms. Jackson has really led 
an exemplary life as far as what she has done for her friends, 
her family and her adopted community, as she and many others 
have come here from Gary, Indiana, down to the Atlanta area.  
I've read through these letters.  And Ms. Chaiken 
kind of beat me to it, but there's a letter from Tonya  
Meadows and it notes that not many people get along with their 
ex-husband's girlfriend, then wife; however, with Carla 
everything was different.  You know, that's a first time for 
me, and I've been doing this for nine years, where you've got 
the ex-wife of someone's husband writing a letter.  I mean, I 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 95 of 107

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
95
think that says a lot right there.  
There was the letter from Reverend Winston discussing 
the clothing drives, food distributions to the homeless, 
sewing seeds in the community, both with time and treasure.  
The letter from Patricia Williams talking about 
standing out in line to get the child registered.  
The letter from Michelle Simpson, again, talking 
about helping the homeless.  Sleeping bags and goody bags for 
the homeless during the winter months.  Patience with troubled 
teens.  
A letter from Lillian Berge (phonetic).  Ms. Jackson 
assisting with the initiation of a program designed to help 
bring together parents of children who were murdered.  
Letter from Kevin Smith talking about her helping 
find mentors for young men and women in their lives, 
volunteering to serve the homeless.  
I mentioned earlier her brother when I gave my 
condolences but also had a cousin murdered.  
And a letter from Janice Walker talking about 
stepping up to help a family injured from a car accident, 
subsequently disabled, Ms. Jackson again becoming a caregiver.  
Just a couple more I wanted to make note of.  
Dion Booker's letter I think is representative of 
many, talking about how she goes above and beyond as a role 
model for family and friends.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 96 of 107

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
96
I was particularly touched by the letter from Cynthia 
Range.  And perhaps this isn't the biggest deal in the world, 
but I think it told me a lot about Ms. Jackson.  Ms. Range 
talks about -- and I read a lot about this book club from all 
the Gary, Indiana, transplants.  I'm guessing there's some 
book club members in the gallery.  I'm just going to read this 
paragraph into the record.  
There was also a time when I was going through a 
financial hard time.  I earned enough money from my job to pay 
all of my bills but not a lot of extra money left over.  Our 
sisterhood had decided to take a vacation.  I let them know 
that I could not go because of limited funds.  We were at a 
restaurant discussing the trip when Carla said to me that she 
would pay for my trip and I could pay her back over time so it 
would not affect my budget.  I kept telling her, no, thank 
you, but she spoke to me face to face and said that it was 
okay and that she had been in the same position before.  I'm 
not the type of person who likes to take handouts, but Carla 
talked to me from a very caring, compassionate and emotionally 
safe place that I accepted and went on vacation with them.  
I think that's really representative of everything 
I've heard about her today and everything I've read about her 
as I was reading through these letters the last couple of 
days.  
Then the very last one was at the top of my stack, at 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 97 of 107

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
97
least, in what you submitted from Adrien Gaines.  And he 
writes about not even being comfortable calling -- being a 
stepson because she was so wonderful to him and has been in 
his life.  
So, you know, I would say as to that sentencing 
factor, history and characteristics of the defendant, 
Mr. Marshall, you presented a case for your client that she 
gets I think an A-plus grade on that factor.  But I'm well 
aware of the Howard case that the government cited, and I know 
it's not my only job here to just look at the good deeds of 
someone when I'm sentencing them.  There are many other 
factors.  
And one that's tremendously important is the 
seriousness of the offense and the circumstances of that 
offense.  And here the circumstances of the offense and the 
seriousness are, in my view, quite serious.  Hundreds of 
thousands of dollars of money was laundered with Ms. Jackson's 
assistance, and I can't let that go unpunished, even for 
someone who, frankly, seems to be the Mother Theresa of the 
Gary, Indiana, transplants here in Atlanta.  I can't ignore 
what she did.  And I do think it needs to be deterred.  I 
think white-collar crime does need to be deterred.  I heed the 
precedent in this circuit about that.  
I think general deterrence is important.  And I would 
agree with both Mr. Marshall and Ms. Chaiken that I don't 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 98 of 107

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
98
think specific deterrence is a very big factor here.  
I have considered the various sentences.  And I have 
considered the guidelines.  This does represent a variance 
from the guidelines, and I have opted to vary downward from 
the guideline range here, not nearly as much as the defense 
would have liked me to.  But my sentence is not based just on 
the history and characteristics of the defendant, it's based 
on all of the guideline factors and the argument of the 
government about remorse as well.  
I also think it's important not to have disparate 
sentences.  And, obviously, this case is in some ways 
different from many of the other sentences in this greater 
case involving PPP fraud in that Ms. Jackson is charged just 
with money laundering, and many of the others had different 
charges.  But as far as disparity is concerned, I think a lot 
of the individuals in this case have been sentenced either at 
the low end of the guidelines or there's been some slight 
variances downward.  And I think, from my experience in this 
district, that is fairly typical of money laundering in that 
the sentences are usually at the very low end of the 
guidelines or even a variance down somewhat.  So I think my 
varying down a little more than one level into two levels 
downward I think is very consistent with other sentences.  
And I think it's also important that she not be 
punished for going to trial.  I think it's obvious to me based 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 99 of 107

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
99
on the case that was presented that Ms. Jackson believed that 
she should be found innocent and argued for that, and she's 
not to be penalized for making that argument.  
Mr. Marshall, does the defense request voluntarily 
surrender?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Yes, your Honor.  If possible, if we 
could do that.  There's been no violations.  She's been fine 
on supervision.  
THE COURT:  Ms. Chaiken, I assume no objection?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Correct, your Honor, no objection. 
THE COURT:  How long would you like?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, is it the position where they 
just notify her when to surrender, that's normally what 
happens?  
THE COURT:  Yes, unless you ask for some specific 
amount. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Thank you, your Honor.  
THE COURT:  In which case I think I just say "not 
before."  
My sentence is concurrent as to both Counts 46 and 
47.  And there will be a $200 special assessment.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Judge, unless it's too long according 
to the Court, four to six months out, if that's possible.  I 
know the sooner she starts, the sooner she gets done.  She 
does have to get her house in order.  I think there's a course 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 100 of 107

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
100
she's also taking, Judge, that she's trying to get finished, 
but if that's a possibility.  Maybe four months out if that's 
possible. 
THE COURT:  Six seems to be a bit of a stretch to me 
unless there's some -- you know, she's in the middle of a 
program that ends in five-and-a-half months, that's one story.  
But if it's just kind of a four to six months, that seems like 
a lot.  I mean, I haven't heard from the government yet, but 
it's a little more than I'm accustomed to.  
Ms. Chaiken?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  We don't object to four months, your 
Honor.  Six sounds a little long to us as well.
MR. MARSHALL:  Thank you, your Honor.  
THE COURT:  So the defendant will report not before 
September 16th, if I'm doing my math right, of this year.  
Although I don't have the authority to select the 
detention facility, I can recommend one.  Is there any 
particular request, Mr. Marshall?  
MR. MARSHALL:  Just generally as close to Atlanta as 
possible, Judge. 
THE COURT:  I would say as close to Atlanta as 
possible at a facility with the appropriate security level.  I 
would think she would be eligible for something very low 
security.  
I didn't see any need to recommend anything in 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 101 of 107

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
101
particular as to substance abuse, mental health or vocational 
training.  Is there any desire on that front?  
MR. MARSHALL:  No, your Honor.  And I'm not sure -- I 
know BOP does the designations.  I would assume that 
Ms. Jackson's going to be at a low-level, you know, designated 
facility.  And to the extent that can include camp or whatever 
the lowest is, that's what we're hoping the BOP will do for 
her. 
THE COURT:  The record should reflect this sentence 
would have been the same irrespective of my ruling on the 
disputed guideline issues that I resolved in favor of the 
government, both as to mitigating role and obstruction.  In 
other words, I would have sentenced the defendant to the same 
term of incarceration even if I had not ruled as I did on 
those issues.  
There is an unobjected to proposed forfeiture order, 
is that correct?  
MR. MARSHALL:  That's correct, Judge.  
MR. BARNETT:  That's correct, your Honor.  I have 
another copy if the Court would like.  
THE COURT:  Okay.  I was -- my stack in this case was 
fairly large, but I think I've got that.  
Well, I don't have it handy, but I've reviewed it.  
And Ms. Lee is indicating she can sign it for me 
electronically, so I'll go ahead and sign off on that. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 102 of 107

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
102
MR. BARNETT:  Thank you, your Honor.  We just ask it 
be announced as part of the sentence this afternoon. 
THE COURT:  If you want me to announce it, I'm still 
going to have to find the copy of it.  
I've granted the motion for forfeiture in the amount 
of $39,700.  Does that do it?  
MR. BARNETT:  I believe so, your Honor.  It's 
just mostly for forfeiture money judgment. 
THE COURT:  Very well.  Granted.  
Before I advise the defendant of her appeal rights, 
does the government or defense 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?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  No objection from the government, your 
Honor. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Other than what's already been put on 
the record, your Honor, no further ones. 
THE COURT:  Very well.  
Ms. Jackson, you have the right to appeal your 
conviction.  You also have the statutory right to appeal your 
sentence under certain circumstances, particularly if you 
think the sentence is contrary to law.  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 for the cost of your appeal, 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 103 of 107

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
103
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. Marshall will be happy to advise you 
further on this matter.  
Ms. Jackson, do you have any questions about anything 
I've said at today's sentencing hearing, ma'am?  
THE DEFENDANT:  No, your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Counsel, is there anything else that we 
need to discuss?  
MS. CHAIKEN:  May I have one moment, your Honor?
(Pause in the proceedings.)
MS. CHAIKEN:  Nothing further, your Honor.  Thank 
you.  
MR. MARSHALL:  Nothing further, Judge. 
THE COURT:  All right.  One moment.  
I would add, I discussed this earlier, but I noted 
that the sentence was sufficient but not greater than 
necessary.  The government asked for a low-end 41 months, and 
I was originally leaning in that direction.  And this was a 
case in which that language hung me up, sufficient but not 
greater than necessary.  And I thought anything above three 
years would have been greater than necessary in this case.  I 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 104 of 107

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
104
know it's maybe of some of us who are doing this week in, week 
out, think five months isn't a big deal, but I think five 
minutes is a big deal if you're going to hold someone in 
custody.  And I think that I didn't want to go above three 
years here because I thought that would have been greater than 
necessary just for the government's benefit to understand why 
I went below the guidelines.  
That's all I have.  
Ms. Lee, thank you.  
Ms. Coudriet, thank you.  
My thanks also to the court security officer and our 
probation officer.  
Ms. Jackson, I don't take any pleasure in sentencing 
you to prison, but I thought that's what the law demanded here 
based on the jury's finding.  I do commend you for all of your 
good works in your community and vis-a-vis your family.  I 
noted in several of the letters that you're the type of person 
who can take a knock and get back up.  This, I would think, 
would be considered one of the bigger knocks of your entire 
life, and I hope that you can, consistent with how you've 
handled adversity before, make the best of this and serve your 
time.  
I never like to talk about good time credits because 
I never know exactly how those are going to play out, but if 
you're available for those, I hope you're able to accumulate 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 105 of 107

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
105
them and get out and continue to be a productive member of 
society.  
Best of luck to you, ma'am. 
THE DEFENDANT:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Yes, Ms. Chaiken.  
MS. CHAIKEN:  Your Honor, I'm very sorry.  I am sure 
you did this, but I just want to confirm -- because my 
colleague and I were discussing a separate issue and I just 
want to make sure that the defendant was advised of her appeal 
rights.  I'm sure she was, but I just wanted to confirm. 
MR. MARSHALL:  Did you advise of the 14-day period, 
Judge?  
THE COURT:  I think I did but let me check my notes 
in the rough transcript.
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you, your Honor.   
THE COURT:  Yes, I did, but thank you for double 
checking.   
MS. CHAIKEN:  Thank you, your Honor.  I'm sorry about 
that. 
THE COURT:  Very well.  We're adjourned.
(PROCEEDINGS REPORTED WERE CONCLUDED 3:49 P.M.)
___________________________ 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 106 of 107

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
106
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 14th Day of June, 2024. 
    ________________________________
  
  
               
    PENNY PRITTY COUDRIET, RMR, CRR
    OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 1047     Filed 06/22/24     Page 107 of 107

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.292218.1047.0.pdf

Size

650,294 bytes

SHA-256

2b21a19a607b0cdda2419a77c13eae6ffa6db1600a6d9a57072d558c672a7452

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.292218.1047.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)