SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by Ayaz Qureshi — USA v. Qureshi (Dkt. 60)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland · No. 1:22-cr-00330-JKB · Doc. 60 · 2024-08-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
* 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
 
v. 
* CRIMINAL NO.  1:22-CR-00330-JKB 
* 
AYAZ QURESHI, 
* 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
* 
Defendant 
* 
 *     
*
*     
*
*     
*
*     
*
*     
*
* 
*
SENTENCING MEMO OF THE DEFENDANT 
The Defendant submits this Memorandum in support of his upcoming sentencing on 
September 4, 2024 at 10:00 AM. Defendant pled guilty to Count Two of the Superseding 
Indictment in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343.2. The Defendant respectfully submits that a 
sentence of probation with no period of executed incarceration is appropriate. Although the 
Defendant is cognizant of the statutory prohibition for probation, the Defendant submits that a 
thorough examination of whether probation is a possibility still exists. And after such 
deliberation, the Defendant submits that such is reasonable. Further, that any fine or money 
judgment be suspended in light of the financial circumstance of the defendant or monthly 
payments in an amount consistent with his ability to pay.  
BACKGROUND 
By way of the plea agreement, the Defendant acknowledges he participated in the PPP 
Loan process that resulted in his company Yazee, Inc. receiving funds in the amount of 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 1 of 12

$250,000.00. However, not all of the parts of this complex process were originated by 
Defendant, himself. Defendant, paramount, was not a co-conspirator, but rather he was a naïve 
and foolhardy participant.  
Although Yazee, Inc. was not operating as described when it applied for the PPP Loan, it 
should be clear that Yazee, Inc. was in existence prior to Defendant encountering A.S., the 
person who helped him apply for the PPP Loan. The information propagated within the forms 
submitted where not prepared by the Defendant. Although he provided documents as requested 
by A.S., all of the information and the amount of the Loan was determined by A.S. The 
Defendant foolishly followed along.  
For the Defendant, Yazee, Inc. represented the American Dream, where any immigrant 
can come to the U.S. and start a company and prosper and support a family. But unfortunately, 
that dream quickly crashed out and landed in a web with A.S.  
For the Defendant, Yazee, Inc. was a yet to be realized company that existed mostly in 
paper form. This is because Defendant is not an entrepreneur, seasoned in the ways of capitalism 
and its inner workings. When it came to running a business, Defendant is woefully unprepared 
for the human capital investment, lacks necessary business acumen, and has mental health issues 
compounding his ability to focus on complex tasks. Yazee, Inc. was a shell going nowhere. 
Notwithstanding, these shortcomings did not dissuade the Defendant from trying to earn a 
meager living and being a good husband and father.  
Despite the Defendant’s major shortcoming in having to plead guilty, the Defendant is 
and has always been loyal to his spouse and supportive of his family emotionally and financially. 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 2 of 12

However, the inability to support his family during a difficult time, Covid, impacted him along 
with everyone else.  
 
When Defendant first contacted A.S., it was not for the purposes of a PPP Loan. 
Defendant sought the services of A.S. as he was attempting to repair his credit, and secure 
financing for a home mortgage. From this, discussions with A.S. then evolved into what 
eventually became the PPP Loan. Defendant accepts that he followed the directions of A.S., and 
recognizes that he could have easily said no, but still elected to go forward.  
 
The Defendant pled guilty to Wire Fraud because he recognized the nature of what he 
did. The Defendant made the wrong choice to associate with A.S.  The Defendant recognizes that 
he is not an innocent bystander caught in the wake of criminality, rather he understands the fact 
that he elected to follow the directions of A.S. He understands that this makes him guilty, despite 
the best of his intentions.  
 
In total, the losses are not in dispute. The Defendant used the monies obtained through 
A.S., as he directed, and paid payroll as well as taxes to persons who did not work for him or 
Yazee, Inc. In total $144,647.21 was paid to persons (along with their payroll taxes) who did not 
work for Defendant or Yazee, Inc. $75,000.00 of that was taken by A.S., and what remained 
(about $31k) the Defendant used for himself and his family. In terms of benefitting from a crime, 
this Defendant still exhibits the same results he had when he first started Yazee, Inc., failure.  
ARGUMENT 
In it undisputed that sentences must be “sufficient, but not greater than necessary” to 
comply with specific sentencing purposes, which include that the sentence reflect the severity of 
the offense, afford adequate deterrence, protect the public from future crimes of the defendant, 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 3 of 12

and provide necessary educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 
treatment for the defendant in the most effective manner. See 18 U.S.C. § 3533(a).  
Moreover, in Gall v. United States,  
“We now hold that, while the extent of the difference between a particular sentence and 
the recommended Guidelines range is surely relevant, courts of appeals must review all 
sentences—whether inside, just outside, or significantly outside the Guidelines range—
under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” 
In reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence outside the Guidelines range, appellate 
courts may therefore take the degree of variance into account and consider the extent of a 
deviation from the Guidelines. We reject, however, an appellate rule that requires 
“extraordinary” circumstances to justify a sentence outside the Guidelines range. We also reject 
the use of a rigid mathematical formula that uses the percentage of a departure as the standard for 
determining the strength of the justifications required for a specific sentence. 
“It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the sentencing 
judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case as a unique 
study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and 
the punishment to ensue.” Koon v. United States, 518 U. S. 81, 113 (1996).  
The sentencing guidelines instruct that certain characteristics, including “family ties and 
responsibilities,” are not ordinarily relevant to determining whether a departure may be 
warranted. However, post United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005), the federal 
sentencing guidelines are no longer mandatory.  
“…the Guidelines are not mandatory, and thus the “range of choice dictated by the facts 
of the case” is significantly broadened. Moreover, the Guidelines are only one of the 
factors to consider when imposing sentence, and §3553(a)(3) directs the judge to 
consider sentences other than imprisonment.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007).  
Presently, the USSG score of 14 places Defendant in the Guidelines Range of 15 to 21 
Months. This is just slightly outside the range of eligible probation. The Government’s position 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 4 of 12

is that a sentence below the advisory range is appropriate, namely one year and one day. The 
Defendant offers the following mitigation to submit that further departure and variance to 
Probation is warranted. Similarly, pursuant to Gall, the Defendant submits that probation is 
reasonable, and a non-guideline based sentenced should follow.  
MITIGATION 
 
Despite creating the fake payroll, the Defendant, nonetheless, paid $144K in wages and 
taxes to several persons who had nothing to do with Yazee, Inc. The Defendant’s actions were, 
to a degree, selfless, because he could have kept all of that for himself or spent it on his family. 
Rather, he blindly followed the directions of A.S., and setup the payroll account and injected that 
money back into the economy through, albeit, fraudulent wages and taxes. The Defendant could 
have lavished himself with that money, yet that did not occur. Attached as Exhibit A, the 
Defendant’s wife’s support letter states, they are a simple family and the Defendant is a simple 
man. The Defendant is not prone to vice, exhibits good morals and doesn’t gamble, smoke or 
drink. Even after they received the money, they never once lavished themselves with it. 
Principally, because that is not what the Defendant intended for the money.  
 
For the Defendant this case represents the first criminal infraction in his entire life. This 
case is an anomaly in the Defendant’s life, and he wants nothing more than to return to the 
normality of his simple life. However, his impending sentencing is not lost on this Defendant. He 
is fully aware that his conduct warrants a restriction of his liberty, but just how much restriction 
is the crossroad we now face.  
The Defendant’s mistake in trusting his judgement is a very hard lesson learned, and one 
that will never happen again. As stated in the support letters from Jay Scarola, Faisal Siddiqui 
and David Hamilton, this Defendant is good person, morally, a good father, but far too naïve in 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 5 of 12

how he interacts with the real world. Exhibit B. Paramount, the Defendant is the type of person 
who can appreciate and learn without the necessity of incarceration. The Defendant is far from 
the Government’s depiction of some opportunistic criminal miscreant who seeks out nefarious 
schemes to defraud.  The Defendant, although a U.S. Citizen, does not even have a High School 
Diploma or equivalent GED. He earns a meager living working mainly as an Uber driver, but has 
been a pizza delivery man in the past. The Defendant came from a difficult back story, where his 
brother was murdered and he suffered bullying in his adolescent years. Although he lives in an 
adopted country, in many regards the Defendant and his family stand alone and isolated from 
American society, hence why he suffers from depression and anxiety. As stated above, the 
Defendant made attempts to start businesses in the past, but was unsuccessful. Notwithstanding, 
the Defendant is still the breadwinner of his family, and he still provides a lifestyle for them. 
Further, this case represents a powerful lesson for the Defendant, that he can no longer be so 
naïve and trusting of people who will take advantage of his tendency to say, YES.  
In addition, the Defendant does not have extended family or deep community ties to 
support him. His isolation due to culture and language makes surviving that much harder. But, 
nonetheless, the Defendant still recognizes the American spirit of pulling yourself up from your 
bootstraps. The Defendant often works both day and night shifts. The Defendant maintains little 
social interactions outside of family due largely to his role as breadwinner outside the family and 
his caretake role for his daughter with autism inside the family. The Defendant further is 
hampered from social interaction by his own general anxiety and major depressive disorders. 
Notwithstanding, the Defendant still shoulders the weight of caring for his daughter, who is 
autistic and has special needs. Exhibit C – IEP. The Defendant’s role in his relationship to his 
daughter with autism is special. Exhibit D – Dr. Taylor Letter.  
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 6 of 12

 
The Defendant’s daughter has specials needs that are directly fulfilled by the Defendant, 
on a daily basis. Dr. Taylor, the daughter’s physician, provided a support letter memorializing 
the role he has observed the Defendant has in relation to his daughter’s autism. Not only is the 
Defendant a paramount fixture in her life, but per Dr. Taylor, his presence and active role are 
crucial to the stability of her symptoms and outbursts. Absent the Defendant’s role, his daughter 
would suffer an extreme and unusual hardship, and will relapse and fall further from where she 
presently stands. The accomplishments of the daughter to date, stand in jeopardy if the 
Defendant is removed from her life.  
 
This Defendant is irreplaceable in his role as caregiver to his daughter with autism. The 
Defendant submits Post-Booker, this Defendant, as the caregiver of the child with autism bears 
meritorious consideration for further downward departure.  
THERAPY 
 
The Defendant suffers from and is being currently treated for General Anxiety Disorder 
and Major Depressive Disorder. Exhibit E. A contributing factor to the Defendants misguided 
judgement arises from his personal bouts with these maladies. Defendant’s recognition of these 
mental health issues, and adherence to his prescription treatment has helped him regain control. 
Defendant faces a daily reminder to not collapse under the weight of this crime, and uphold his 
role to his spouse by being the rock under which they can both raise Mava, their autistic 
daughter.  
Daughter’s Autism 
 
The best outcome of Mava’s condition (and continued success in school) is having both 
the Defendant and his wife work successfully as a unit to ensure the best interest of the child are 
met. The difficulties of caring for a child with Autism and special needs is a burden that falls 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 7 of 12

outside the bounds of ordinary families. The burden on the Defendant and his wife invades every 
aspect of their lives. Currently, Mava is doing well in school, and that is directly attributable to 
the support of her father and her mother. However, the Defendant’s role as a male-figure, and 
protector of Mava also makes him irreplaceable. Mava loves her father dearly and provided a 
difficult to read hand-written letter. Exhibit F. Mava’s condition requires the Defendant’s daily 
intervention, and any period of incarceration that deprives Mava of this will be catastrophic to 
the child. This is why in this case, the Defendant can be justly punished and society better served 
with a sentence of probation. And, this is also why this Defendant deserves both a departure and 
a variance. Because this Defendant is not the miscreant the Government wants the Court to 
believe. This Defendant is a simple man. He is a father supporting and raising an autistic 
daughter. His own failures in life lead him to commit a foolish crime, made it worse by trying to 
pay it all back through the payroll company. Had the Defendant simply done nothing and just left 
the money there, he would have returned it. Notably, after giving back $135k to A.S., of which is 
only cashed $75k, this Defendant held onto the balance of the proceeds for nearly six (6) months. 
Only after a discussion with A.S. was this Defendant told that he had to create payroll to expend 
the money. And only then would the loan be forgiven. This Defendant foolishly complied.  
 
Now, regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense, the Defendant disputes the 
Governments position of Defendant’s personal enrichment. The Defendant had a role in working 
with A.S. in providing him documents to develop the applications and evidence from Yazee, Inc. 
However, the Defendant is not the master mind behind this. He was also not a co-conspirator. 
Despite the loss of $250k, and the breach of the public trust, this Defendant only profited $31k 
from the fraud. Although the Government frames the sham payroll created by Defendant as 
proactive fraud, we submit its quite the converse. More akin to a poorly cast Robin Hood, who is 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 8 of 12

nowhere as sophisticated, nowhere as intelligent or nowhere as elusive as the fictional character 
to evade capture.  
This Defendant participated in Wire Fraud and obtained $250k during Covid, but then 
paid out $145K to actual people (in the form of payroll and taxes), $75k to A.S. (the kickback), 
and left $31k for himself. If anything, after committing the crime, this Defendant went to great 
lengths to enrich other people rather than himself. For the Defendant, employing the sham 
payroll was the only perceived way to give the money back. Moreover, although the Government 
insists A.S. and the Defendant agreed to the $75k fee, the Defendant actually gave A.S. $135k in 
written checks in the hopes of trying to return more of the initial $250k. However, A.S. only 
deposited $75k.  
 
Under these circumstances, where the Defendant is not the ring-leader, not the 
protagonist of the criminal malfeasance, and only personally profited with $31k, it serves the 
ends of justice not to sentence him harshly with incarceration. The Defendant submits this case 
presents the type of facts that reasonably support an extended period of probation as the 
appropriate sentence. Probation is a sufficient deprivation of liberty that impresses upon this 
Defendant the severity of his conduct, but one that also fairly considers the special needs of his 
daughter. This Defendant is not a career offender and ranks negligible in terms of recidivism.  
 
As to Defendant’s history and characteristics, this Defendant has never had any contact 
with the criminal justice system. Per the PSIR, the Defendant’s “total criminal history score is 
zero. According to the sentencing table in USSG Chapter 5, Part A, a criminal history score of 
zero establishes a criminal history category of I.” 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 9 of 12

Although this crime has a high degree of sophistication, for the Defendant to have 
successfully executed it on his own would not have been possible. Put another way, this white-
collar crime committed by a blue-collar guy requires the participation of other white collars to 
succeed. Hence, why there is A.S.  
The Defendant is a simple person. He is poorly educated with limited occupational 
opportunities, but nonetheless driven to support and care for his family. Despite the 
Government’s projection, this Defendant still lives a humble and private life. The Defendant 
does not dine out often, does not vacation and despite the PPP Loan money, the Defendant never 
spent it lavishly on himself. As stated above, the Defendant actually spent $145k the ill-gotten 
proceeds paying other people, as well as, payroll taxes.  
This Defendant has never been to prison. For his first ever crime, he commits wire fraud. 
The need for the sentence to promote respect for the law can be served by ordering an extended 
period of probation because the Defendant is not hardened in the sense that incarceration is 
necessary. Rather, Defendant is soft and unimposing and can suffer punishment much more 
easily than a genuine, hardened criminal. Exhibit G - Family Photos. In light of the 
circumstances surrounding the Defendant and because this is a non-violent felony, a non-
guideline sentence would be appropriate and reasonable here. By ordering the Defendant to 
educate himself better about business, refrain from vice (which he already does), continue with 
his therapy and, most of all, continue being the caregiver for his daughter, all of this can be 
accomplished without incarceration. Noteworthy, in Gall, the District Court departed 100% 
from the 30-month bottom range of the Guidelines and granted 36 months probation instead of 
incarceration. This was held to be reasonable. 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 10 of 12

Forfeiture 
 
The PSIR, the Defendant is financially incapable of disgorging the agreed amount of 
$250,723.00 USD. However, the Defendant does not dispute there are losses attributable to him. 
As stated above, of the $250k, $145k was paid to people other than him, and $75k to A.S. That 
left $31k, which Defendant does not dispute was used to help support his family. The Defendant, 
prior to this crime, has never had wealth or assets close in value to $250,723.00. Any forfeit 
would be financially the equivalent of bankruptcy.  
Restitution 
 
The Defendant shall live the remaining days of his life indentured to this debt. In some 
universe, under these circumstances, there will come a day when the Defendant will fulfil the 
obligation. The Defendant became the mark for A.S., and the entirety of the loss landed squarely 
in his Wells Fargo account. This cannot be disputed, but the loss is not entirely founded in the 
Defendant personally enriching himself. In light of the amount of funds that did not personally 
benefit the Defendant, this Defendant opposes interest to accrue. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
AI & ASSOCIATES 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jonathan Ai 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bar #14898 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 Research Court, Suite 450 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Rockville, Maryland 20850 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
240-403-4088/301-519-8005 (fax) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jonathan@ailawpc.com 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 11 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I, Jonathan Ai, hereby certify that on August 27, 2024, a copy of Defendant’s Sentencing 
Memorandum was served via the CM/ECF E-Filing system on: 
 
Paul.Riley@usdoj.gov 
 
Paul A. Riley 
 
AUSA, Northern Division 
 
36 S. Charles Street, 4th Floor 
 
Baltimore, Maryland 21201 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jonathan Ai 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bar#14898 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB     Document 60     Filed 08/27/24     Page 12 of 12

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mdd.519685.60.0.pdf

Size

311,064 bytes

SHA-256

476486398526ca8ee37a662c2b773516359abb8231dbd8db09048c8e1eb626a1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mdd.519685.60.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)