Court filing
Sentencing Memorandum by USA as to George Arestuche — United States v. Arestuche (Dkt. 28, S.D. Fla. No. 1:25-cr-20001)
Filed May 27, 2025 in Arestuche; one of 5 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-27 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:25-cr-20001-PCH · Doc. 28 · 2025-05-27 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-cr-20001-Cr-HUCK/LOUIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GEORGE ARESTUCHE,
Defendant.
_________________________________/
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
COMES NOW the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United
States Attorney, and files this Sentencing Memorandum, stating as follows:
Factual Background
The facts of this case are laid out in the Stipulated Factual Basis, DE 17, and in
the very thorough Pre-Sentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) prepared by U.S. Probation
Officer Karla Bonilla, DE 27 at ¶¶ 11-16. This Sentencing Memorandum readopts and
incorporates those facts herein, and notes that as previously reported to Officer Bonilla,
the government has no objections to the PSR.
At the time the defendant, George Arestuche (“defendant”), committed his violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 371, he was employed full-time by the Miami-Dade Aviation Department
(“MDAD”) as an airport refrigeration/AC mechanic. PSR at ¶¶ 13, 56; DE 17 at 1.
Regarding his criminal activity, from July 2020 through August 2020, the defendant and
an unindicted co-conspirator conspired to defraud the Small Business Administration
(“SBA”) by fraudulently obtaining for the defendant an SBA Economic Injury Disaster Loan
Case 1:25-cr-20001-PCH Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2025 Page 1 of 5
2
(“EIDL”) and EIDL advance, with the defendant agreeing to pay the co-conspirator a large
fee for preparing and filing the fraudulent EIDL application on his behalf. As a result of
this fraudulent application, the defendant fraudulently obtained from the SBA $149,900 in
EIDL proceeds and a $10,000 EIDL advance, after which the defendant paid the co-
conspirator approximately $17,275 from these proceeds as his fee.
The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range
This Court is required to first compute an advisory Guidelines range before it
applies the 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a) factors to determine the defendant=s ultimate sentence.
See United States v. Crawford, 407 F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005). The PSR
computed the Total Offense Level to be level 11, with the defendant having zero criminal
history points and being in Criminal History Category I, leading to an advisory Guidelines
Zone B sentencing range of 8-14 months. PSR at ¶¶ 31, 34, 69. In addition, the PSR
notes that Guidelines § 5C1.1, Application Note 10(A), states that a sentence other than
imprisonment is generally appropriate for a defendant in Zone B who receives the Zero-
Point Offender reduction. PSR at ¶ 71.
The Government’s Recommendation and the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors
Looking at the facts and circumstances of this case and this defendant, it is the
government’s position that a sentence of probation with special conditions including home
detention, community service and restitution, is the reasonable and necessary sentence
satisfying the purposes of § 3553(a). With the permission of the Court, the government
will provide its recommendations relating to the specific terms of the sentence at the
upcoming sentencing hearing.
Case 1:25-cr-20001-PCH Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2025 Page 2 of 5
3
Section 3553(a)(1) – The Nature of Defendant’s Offense
The first part of §3553(a)(1) focuses on the nature and circumstances of the
offense committed. As set out in the Stipulated Factual Basis and PSR, the defendant,
despite maintaining his MDAD employment during the COVID-19 pandemic, fraudulently
obtained approximately $159,900 in COVID-19 relief funds that he was not entitled to.
This is a serious offense, albeit a one-time incident for the defendant.
Section 3553(a)(1) – The Defendant’s History and Characteristics
The second part of §3553(a)(1) focuses on the history and characteristics of the
defendant. As reflected in the PSR, this factor supports the conclusion that a low-end
probationary sentence is sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing for this
defendant. Prior to engaging in the COVID-relief fraud conspiracy to which he pled
guilty, the defendant was a productive law-abiding citizen, having only minor prior brushes
with the law over 25 years ago. While this history does not excuse his crime, it is a factor
to consider in setting the ultimate sentence, particularly here, where the option of
probation is within the advisory Guidelines range.
Section 3553(a)(2)
Section 3553(a)(2) is aimed at ensuring that the sentence imposed serves the
various purposes stated in subparts (A) – (D), including imposing a sentence that reflects
the seriousness of the offense and provides just punishment and promotes respect for
the law, provides adequate deterrence, and protects the public from a risk of recidivism.
Here, the government respectfully suggests that the § 3553(a)(2) factors are
satisfied by a probationary sentence that includes the special conditions mentioned
Case 1:25-cr-20001-PCH Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2025 Page 3 of 5
4
earlier. While the defendant’s criminal conduct was serious, it was limited to one
incident, and after being approached by law enforcement, he quickly accepted
responsibility, retained counsel, and agreed to resolve this matter via a pre-indictment
plea to an Information. In addition, looking at the incident and the defendant’s history, it
appears that the risk of recidivism appears very low for this defendant. As such, it is the
government’s view that admitting his guilt via a pre-indictment felony plea and paying
more than $50,000 back to the SBA prior to sentencing establish that a probationary
sentence is sufficient to provide just punishment, promote the needed respect for the law,
and provide deterrence.
Section 3553(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5)
These subsections of §3553(a) require consideration of the types of sentences
available, the advisory Guidelines sentencing range, and any relevant policy statements
in determining the final sentence. Here, the government’s recommendation is within the
advisory range applicable to the defendant.
Section 3553(a)(6)
This sub-section focuses on avoiding unwarranted sentencing disparity. Here, the
government is unaware of any sentencing disparity concerns that would arise from a
sentence of probation, which would be within the advisory Guidelines range. Indeed,
there have been numerous cases where otherwise law-abiding defendants have received
sentences of probation for fraudulently obtaining COVID-relief loans.
Section 3553(a)(7)
This sub-section addresses the issue of restitution. The defendant acknowledged
Case 1:25-cr-20001-PCH Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2025 Page 4 of 5
5
his mandatory restitution obligation in the plea agreement. DE 16 at ¶ 9. And, in
addition to his regularly scheduled monthly EIDL repayments, he has already made two
additional voluntary payments of $25,000 since entering his guilty plea, taking a
meaningful step towards fulfilling his restitution obligation.
WHEREFORE, the government respectfully requests that this Court impose a
sentence of probation with special conditions, with the government’s recommendation to
be provided in more detail at the sentencing hearing.
Respectfully submitted,
HAYDEN P. O’BYRNE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
By:
s/Edward N. Stamm
Edward N. Stamm (FL Bar #373826)
Assistant United States Attorney
U.S. Attorney=s Office - SDFL
99 Northeast Fourth Street, 8th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132-2111
Telephone: (305) 961-9164
E-mail: edward.stamm@usdoj.gov
Case 1:25-cr-20001-PCH Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/27/2025 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flsd.681276.28.0.pdf
- Size
- 151,565 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1fa81cdd3e3ce92b55bb65a6eec43610d97846c7229642d225b88def3775834a
- Original
- PACER (login required)