Court filing
Transcript of Proceedings as to Boeroepae Jordan held on 1/16/2025 — USA v. Jordan (Dkt. 15, N.D. Ga.)
Filed September 5, 2025 in USA v. Jordan; one of 7 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-09-05 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:24-cr-00304-SDG · Doc. 15 · 2025-09-05 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
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
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.
Stenographic Reporter note:
No AI technology was used in the preparation of the
Official Certified U.S. District Court Transcript
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 1 of 32
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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
Docket Number
) 1:24-CR-00304-SDG-1
) 1:13-CR-00238-SDG-1
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Atlanta, Georgia
) January 16, 2025
BOEROEPAE JORDAN
)
)
)
Defendant.
)
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING
BEFORE THE HONORABLE STEVEN D. GRIMBERG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL:
FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
MR. GARRETT BRADFORD
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
MR. PAUL KISH
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER:
ALICIA B. BAGLEY, RMR, CRR
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript produced
by computer
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 2 of 32
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
2
P R O C E E D I N G S
(in Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia; January 16, 2025;
all parties and defendant present)
THE COURT: Okay. Let me call the case. United States vs.
Jordan. Case Number 24-CR-304. It's also a supervised release case
of 13-CR-238. Let's have appearances of counsel beginning with the
government.
MR. BRADFORD: Good afternoon, Your Honor. Garrett Bradford
on behalf of the United States. I'm also joined at counsel table by
Special Agent Monte Sharitt of TIGTA.
THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.
MR. KISH: Judge, Paul Kish on behalf of the defendant.
THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, sir.
I see Officer Peña is here.
PROBATION OFFICER: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Good afternoon. Is that Officer Fields?
PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon, sir.
All right. Well, Mr. Kish, I know I've worked with you for a
number of years so I know this is unlike you so I'm not going to give
you a hard time about that.
MR. KISH: Thank you.
THE COURT: I understand that you were supposed to meet with
Mr. Jordan at 2:30.
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 3 of 32
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
3
MR. KISH: I just wanted him here early because I wanted -- we
met the other day for several hours. We're fine.
THE COURT: Okay. That was my question was whether -- I
wanted to make sure you've had enough time to meet.
MR. KISH: We did. Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Jordan pled guilty on
October 10th of last year to Counts One and Two of a criminal
information which charged him with wire fraud, in violation of
Title 18 United States Code, Section 1343 and 2. Those are Class C
felonies. Count One carries a maximum term of imprisonment of
20 years and a $250,000 fine or twice the loss or twice the gain
whichever is greater.
Count Two carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 30 years and
up to a $1 million fine or, again, twice the loss or twice the gain
whichever is greater.
Mr. Kish, have you had a sufficient time to review the
presentence report with your client?
MR. KISH: We have.
THE COURT: Okay. We're also here on the sentencing for
supervised release violation. We had a hearing on that back in
October in which Mr. Jordan admitted to the violation. I believe at
the time I went through what the penalties for that was, but let me
just repeat that here.
For the supervised release violation it is -- the statutory
maximum sentence that's available is up to 5 years. The most serious
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 4 of 32
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
4
grade violation is an A.
So with that, let me turn back to the presentence report. I
think there are a couple of objections that we may need to resolve.
One of them was by the defendant to Paragraph 74 which relates to a
conviction on Mr. Jordan's record. What I'm understanding, Mr. Kish,
from your objection is that you're indicating this was not your client
and this was somebody who may have been using his name.
MR. KISH: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KISH: It's somebody - I actually happen to know this
person whose name it is. He's a former client. We will withdraw that
objection since in my opinion it has no impact on the calculation of
the guideline. It also wasn't objected to by counsel in Mr. Jordan's
earlier case. I'll withdraw that objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Very well.
And then the government filed an objection to Paragraph 146
concerning Mr. Jordan's ability to pay a fine. I'm not sure if that's
necessarily an objection to resolve. But is there something you want
to add to that, Mr. Bradford?
MR. BRADFORD: No, Your Honor. But I can address that when
I'm recommending a specific sentence.
THE COURT: Okay. Okay. That is fine. So I'll consider that
as a withdrawn objection as well.
Any other objections on behalf of the government or the
defendant?
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 5 of 32
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
5
MR. KISH: Not from the defense, Judge.
THE COURT: Any other objections?
MR. BRADFORD: Your Honor, I just wanted to clarify that I was
not withdrawing the objection. I just don't believe that it affects
the guidelines calculation and I was planning to address how the Court
may factor in the defendant's ability to pay a fine or not.
THE COURT: Right. I guess what I was saying is it something
that I need to resolve to come to a finding before we get to the
guideline calculations? I've never encountered this type of
objection, necessarily, and what I'm understanding the government's
position to be is that you believe that Mr. Jordan has not been
completely forthright on his financial ability to pay the fine;
correct?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct. And it is defendant's burden to prove
that he is unable to pay a fine in the guidelines. So my position is
that the defendant has not met that burden in this case. However, as
I was planning to go into later, the government recognizes that the
Court is likely to impose a significant amount of restitution.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BRADFORD: And so the Court can in lieu of the fine order
community service or something along those lines instead of a --
THE COURT: Okay. I guess the question is is there something
that you believe I need to resolve or make a finding on before we get
to the 3553 portion of the hearing?
MR. BRADFORD: I don't believe so, Your Honor.
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 6 of 32
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
6
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. BRADFORD: With the caveat that the Court -- well, I
believe the Court has the right to impose a fine if it wishes.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. BRADFORD: I don't believe that the defendant has
proven --
THE COURT: Yes. Well, I certainly have the right -- I mean,
regardless of what the presentence report indicates about his ability
to pay a fine, that doesn't take away my authority to impose a fine,
so that's always true.
MR. BRADFORD: Correct.
THE COURT: The question is does he have the ability to pay a
fine? I think a lot, as you pointed out, is probably theoretical.
You know, not to bury the lead here, given the significant restitution
amount, I'm unlikely to impose a fine on top of that. But I'll hear
you out on what you propose as part of your presentation later.
MR. BRADFORD: Okay. I believe that's fine, Your Honor.
Thank you.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. So to the extent that objection
is still standing, I will overrule it with that clarification, and
otherwise adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the
presentence report.
So utilizing the 2024 edition of the guidelines, Counts One and
Two are grouped and the calculations are as follows:
The Base Offense Level under 2B1.1(a)(1) is a Level 7 because
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 7 of 32
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
7
the offense of conviction carries a statutory penalty of more than
20 years -- 20 or more years, I should say.
Twelve levels are added under B1.1(b)(1) for the loss being
between $250,000 and $550,000. Here, the loss attributable to the
offense is $323,433.31.
Two levels are added under 3B1.1(c) for the role in the offense
in that the defendant was found to have been an organizer, leader,
manager or supervisor in a criminal activity other than that as
described in Subsections (a) and (b). Specifically, in that he
recruited his mother Doris into the scheme and had decisionmaking
authority over it. That brings us to an adjusted Offense Level of 21.
Three levels are reduced for acceptance of responsibility under
3E1.1 which is a total Offense Level of 18, Criminal History Category
of III, which is a custody guideline range of 33 to 41 months, a fine
guideline range of $10,000 to $100,000, a term of supervised release
of 1 to 3 years as to Count One and 2 to 5 years as to Count Two, and
a special assessment of $200.
Any objection to those guideline calculations?
MR. BRADFORD: Not from the government, Your Honor.
MR. KISH: Not from the defense, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. The restitution amount I have is
323,433.31 to the Small Business Administration; is that correct,
Mr. Bradford?
MR. BRADFORD: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. KISH: Here's the only question I have about the
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 8 of 32
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
8
restitution issue. There's a loan amount, that's given. The
difference between the loan amount that's set out in the presentence
report and this approximately $323,000 figure, that spread is
attributable to two sources. One, the interest that is charged on the
unpaid loan which I understand because that's recoverable under the
Victim Witness Protection Act. But then there's a loan-processing fee
that apparently was charged by the lender and which was insured and
covered. Maybe this is all academic. But I'm not sure -- the
loan-processing fee, I think, is approximately $14,000. I don't know
if that's recoverable and so because that number - I can find it for
you in the presentence report - does exist, I would suggest that we
back that out from the restitution figure.
THE COURT: Well, we don't back things out of the restitution
figure. Restitution is the loss to the victim so we have to determine
what that amount is.
MR. KISH: My argument is that that $14,000 is not a loss to
the victim.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, unless the government agrees with
that -- do you?
MR. BRADFORD: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So I'll have to make a finding in that regard.
Are you objecting to the restitution amount, then?
MR. KISH: Yes, sir. I'm objecting to that figure that's
contained on Page 33 of the presentence report. And the basis, if I
could, for that objection --
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 9 of 32
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
9
THE COURT: Why didn't you object to the presentence report by
paragraph of it when it was issued to you?
MR. KISH: You know, Judge, to simplify this matter today, I
will withdraw that objection.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. KISH: Thank you.
THE COURT: So are you then stipulating to the restitution
amount of $323,433.31?
MR. KISH: I will.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. That is the guideline range and
restitution amount for the new criminal conduct. For the supervised
release violation hearing, I believe I gave this guideline range
during our last hearing, but let me repeat it.
Criminal History Category I which is what would be applicable
for the supervised release hearing, the guideline range is 24 to
30 months. Any objection to that guideline range?
MR. BRADFORD: Not for the government, Your Honor.
MR. KISH: I don't object, Judge.
THE COURT: All right. So I'll now hear from the parties as
to their recommendation for a reasonable sentence. I'm happy to hear
as to the criminal information as well as the supervised release
hearing, either jointly or separately, however you wish to present it.
I did carefully review the presentence report as well as I
received a number of letters submitted on behalf of the defendant from
family and friends and associates, I reviewed all of those letters.
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 10 of 32
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
10
So thank you very much for putting that together.
And I appreciate, Mr. Kish, you organizing it for me --
MR. KISH: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: -- the way you did.
All right. With that, let me hear from the government.
MR. BRADFORD: Thank you, Your Honor.
Consistent with the plea agreement the government is
recommending a term of 33 months to be followed -- 33 months in prison
to be followed by supervised release of 3 years on Count One and 5
years on Count Two.
For supervised release, the government requests conditions
typical in financial fraud cases, including that Mr. Jordan be
required to submit to -- submit financial disclosures to the United
States Probation Office and obtain pre-approval before opening
financial accounts or lines of credit.
And also, pursuant to the plea agreement, we request that the
sentence on the revocation of supervised release be 24 months to run
concurrent with the term of imprisonment in this new case.
The government believes this would be a reasonable sentence
considering all the 3553(a) factors and I urge the Court to not
entertain any lower sentence. Specifically, Mr. Jordan committed a
very serious crime. During an unprecedented pandemic while his fellow
members of the community were suffering with many people desperate and
unable to work, with businesses cratering and having to terminate
their employees, Mr. Jordan saw an opportunity. Not to help his
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 11 of 32
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
11
neighbors and community, but to instead victimize the system for his
own benefit.
Knowing that he wasn't entitled to the money, he used a fake
business and Photoshopped fake documents to get an EIDL advance. He
even exploited and roped his own mother, elderly mother, into
disguising his scheme, having her open a bank account under false
pretences, having her lie to the bank and pretend that she owned that
fake business.
Seeing how the application for the EIDL advance worked,
Mr. Jordan doubled down and got a PPP loan, too, but not just for
$5,000, not just for $20,000. For $291,000. It was pure greed and a
complete lack of compunction about lying.
It wasn't a victimless crime. He was ripping off his fellow
citizens and taxpayers by stealing taxpayer funds. The Court may
recall that the PPP program ultimately had to be shut down early
because it had been drained of funds leaving struggling businessowners
and legitimately qualified individuals who needed the funds unable to
receive them. Mr. Jordan's fraud contributed to that early shutdown.
Mr. Jordan didn't do this because he was starving or because he
needed money for emergency healthcare for himself or his family. No.
He blew the money. He spent it on restaurants, luxury retail goods,
nail salons, and furniture. And what a spending spree it was. He
received the money on May 20th, 2020. By July 31st, all but $4,700
was gone. So he blew through $286,000 in two months' time. I should
caveat that by noting that he also transferred sizable chunks to other
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 12 of 32
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
12
accounts or withdrew a lot of the funds in cash and we don't know
where those funds are today.
But perhaps, most concerningly, Mr. Jordan did this while on
supervised release for another set of federal crimes. He should have
already learned his lesson about a life of crime. He was supposed to
be on his best behavior. But to the contrary, he started his scheme
in March 2020, only six months after his release from prison
September 2019. This type of conduct warrants a serious prison term
of 33 months.
The government also believes that a sentence of 33 months is
high enough to represent all of the circumstances of the offense. In
particular, Mr. Jordan agreed to accept responsibility and plead
guilty to an information prior to indictment saving the government
time and resources.
He agreed to a guideline adjustment for role in the offense.
He also agreed to plead guilty to an offense in Count Two with a
30-year statutory maximum instead of one with a 20-year maximum which
triggered a Base Offense Level of 7 instead of 6. This type of early
pre-indictment plea, especially to a count that isn't the minimum
required to reflect the conduct, should be incentivized. For these
reasons, the government believes that the requested sentence is
appropriate.
Moving on to the financial aspects of the sentence. The parties
agreed in the plea agreement that Mr. Jordan owes restitution to the
SBA in the amount of 323,433.31. So far Mr. Jordan has not made any
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 13 of 32
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
13
attempt to pay down this restitution prior to sentencing.
Further, the government has made repeated requests for
Mr. Jordan to propose or agree to a payment plan or any minimum
payments for this restitution but he has so far refused to make any
proposals. We also ask if you would consent to making payments of
just $300 per month, but he would not agree to that even. That's
disappointing because we expected Mr. Jordan to show at least some
good faith in that area especially given the favorable plea agreement.
Accordingly, the government asks that the Court order he make
payments of at least $400 per month when he is released from prison
with his supervising probation officer having the discretion to
increase that amount.
Additionally, a fine is applicable. The guidelines state that
the Court shall impose a fine in all cases except where the defendant
establishes he's unable to pay and is not likely to become able to pay
any fine. Here, Mr. Jordan has not met his burden of proof. There
are seriously concerning inaccuracies in his accounting of assets,
income and expenses as reflected in the PSR. He still has not
provided an accurate accounting of his cash flow or income or how he
is paying roughly $6,400 in monthly expenses when he's reportedly only
receiving $2,000 per month as an apprentice barber.
However, the government recognizes that Mr. Jordan will be
ordered to pay significant restitution and if the Court is reluctant
to order a fine on top of the restitution and decides to waive the
fine, which the Court has discretion to do, the guidelines provide
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 14 of 32
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
14
that the Court shall consider alternative sanctions, including
community service. The guidelines contemplate up to 400 hours of
community service. That would be reasonable in this case given the
nature and extent of Mr. Jordan's crimes. It would also provide him
with a path to at least give something back to the community. It
could also address any concern the Court may have regarding running
the sentence for supervised release revocation concurrently with the
prison sentence for the new crime.
For these reasons, the government requests a sentence of
33 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release and financial
disclosure requirements.
The government also requests Mr. Jordan be ordered to pay
restitution in the amount of at least $400 a month. The government
also requests that the Court impose a fine or significant term of
community service of up to 400 hours. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. Is there any forfeiture?
MR. BRADFORD: The government is not seeking forfeiture.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. BRADFORD: Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Kish.
MR. KISH: Yes, sir.
I am very mindful of what happened when we were here to plead
guilty when you announced to the parties that you were aware that the
government would be recommending a concurrent sentence but were not
necessarily binding yourself to that recommendation. So for that
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 15 of 32
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
15
reason I'd like to do --
First, I want to explain what I think happened here. Second, I
want to respond to some of the things the government said about the
financial situation just briefly. And then, finally, I would like for
Mr. Jordan to address the Court.
I've gotten to know this man and his extended family, some of
whom are here today, I've gotten to know them quite well. I do not
mean this disrespectfully to him but he has tried in business and he
has failed miserably. He got this money like a lot of my clients did
and a lot of people tried to start businesses. Some of them spent
money and splurged on it.
I couldn't help but notice that if we look at Paragraph 37(ii)
in the presentence report, one of the places where the money was spent
was another fraud scheme that I happen to know about that was
prosecuted in the Northern District of Georgia.
What was happening was that the people who were submitting the
applications were basically telling the purported borrowers, people
like my client, to invest in other businesses. It was a long-ranging
scheme that they were giving the money to one another. It is not in
any way an excuse, nor does it undercut my client's responsibility,
but it shows this wasn't a complete splurge. They thought they were
investing in other properties, but it still was fraud.
But the Court can also see, both from the information in the
presentence report and in the many letters that we submitted -- to his
credit, Mr. Jordan is a helper in his community not only for his own
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 16 of 32
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
16
family but for members of his church and other people that he's known
for a long time.
Furthermore - and this, then, ties into the financial
situation - he is extraordinarily supportive of his children, both his
biological children, and those whom he has taken on as his own and
that is to his detriment when it comes to being able to have cash flow
that the government is pointing out we haven't been able to establish
to establish where the money goes. The money comes into one pocket
and it goes out the other is the problem with this young man. He
lives at home with his mother, he tries to always provide support to
his children, and the result of which is he doesn't have very much to
show for it.
The government last night at about 6:30 sent me a message asking
for my client to agree to a $300 payment plan. Frankly, I wasn't
prepared to discuss that. I was in the middle of some other cases.
But we agree there has not been anything paid because my client's
current income is what he can obtain from barbering, that's what he
does, it is his current income.
I have gone over these now extraordinarily in-depth financial
statements that are requested by the government with their brand-new
section people here who handle all this and we have gone over again
and again and again what is in these materials to try to demonstrate
to the government that my client simply has nothing.
For example, we had to backtrack and point out that with some of
the assets my client had written in the word "sold" to show he no
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 17 of 32
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
17
longer had these assets to demonstrate that there simply is nothing
remaining with which he can use to currently pay anything. He knows
he has to pay something. We were waiting for the Court to order it,
obviously, as whatever condition the Court deems appropriate.
The bottom line here is that this is a crime. It's a serious
crime, I agree with the government on that. Fortunately, it's not a
violent crime. But this is a man who -- for the most part, some of
the money was splurged, some of it was paid for investments that were
really poor, quite frankly, and some of it was used to support his
family, which is illegal to use the money this way but, nevertheless,
more laudable than the way some people spend it.
I do know that Mr. Jordan wants to address you before you make
your final decision, Judge. Would you like for us to do that here or
at counsel table?
THE COURT: I usually will save that for the last.
MR. KISH: Okay.
THE COURT: So is there anything else? I'll let you finish
up.
MR. KISH: The only thing I would like to finish up with is to
reiterate what Mr. Bradford said which was that there was a
significant amount of negotiation in this case and the parties came to
what we felt like was a good-faith agreement taking into account all
the circumstances. So we are asking that the Court follow that
recommendation, especially the recommendation about making the
sentences for both the revocation of supervised release and the new
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 18 of 32
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
18
criminal conduct to be run concurrent with each other, and there's an
extra reason for why that is so.
Going back and looking at the presentence report -- I realized
that the case that Judge Evans in this court had imposed supervised
release on for which you have a decision to make today was a felon in
possession 924(c) case where Mr. Jordan had already been prosecuted
and to which he pled guilty in Fulton County Superior Court. So he
kind of got a double hit on a single criminal conduct.
Furthermore, because the government in that case charged the
firearm possession as a 924(c), that is, as we practitioners in the
business know, under sentencing B1.4 of the guidelines a Class A-1
felony which means the guideline range was 24 to 30 and not 12 to
18 months.
Again, the calculations are accurate, but I think it's among the
more benign Class A violations of supervised release that one sees,
and so I think that's yet another reason why, from my perspective, the
government's recommendation of a concurrent sentence is appropriate
and we would ask you to follow that.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
Mr. Bradford, anything you want to add?
MR. BRADFORD: Just to clarify for the record, Your Honor.
We've asked defense counsel on multiple occasions about a
proposed payment plan. It was not just last night. It was one of the
followup questions we sent to them on December 19th and I believe I
was trying to find the date of another email that I sent, but I
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 19 of 32
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
19
believe it predated December 19th by a few days.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Jordan, you're not required to say anything before I impose
sentence, but it sounds like you do intend to do so. You're welcome
to do it there or at the podium wherever you'd like. Wherever you're
comfortable.
THE DEFENDANT: Right here?
THE COURT: That's fine. Just bring the microphone close to
you.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm a little nervous, excuse me.
THE COURT: No problem.
THE DEFENDANT: I'd just like to, you know, apologize to the
courts for everything they say -- I did do it. I mean, you know, I
admit guilt for, you know, violating my probation.
You know, I came home from prison feeling this big and thought
the money was going to make me feel like a bigger person and it really
didn't. It's really hurt my family. I apologize to my family,
friends, and just people who support me.
And, you know, I never thought I was going to be in this
situation again and I just look forward and just hope -- I know I've
been working on myself. I'm not the same guy I was five years ago
when this happened. You know, I've been through counseling. You
know, I've been working on myself. You have to learn to love
yourself.
And, you know, how people writing they really love you not just
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 20 of 32
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
20
for money or things of that nature, but they love you because you're a
person, you know, and I had to learn that through my fiancee, my
mother, you know, those people. I just want to be there for my kids,
you know, because I love my kids.
I really don't have much to say. That's kind of it. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you very much.
Let's take a 10-minute recess and be back at 3:20.
(recess taken from 3:10 p.m. until 3:20 p.m.)
THE COURT: Mr. Jordan, please stand.
It's the judgment of the court that you're hereby committed to
the custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term
of 41 months, 33 months as to Count One and 33 months as to Count Two,
each to run concurrently with one another, along with a consecutive
sentence of 8 months on the supervised release violation hearing in
Case Number 13-CR-238 for a total term of imprisonment of 41 months.
Upon release from imprisonment, you'll be placed on supervised
release for a total term of 3 years, 3 years as to Count One and 3
years as to Count Two, each to run concurrently with one another for a
total term of supervised release of 3 years. There is no additional
supervised release term added on the supervised release violation
sentence.
It's further ordered that you pay restitution in the amount of
323,433.31 to the victim of the offense, the Small Business
Administration. You'll make restitution payments from wages you may
earn in prison. Any portion of the restitution that is not paid in
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 21 of 32
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
21
full at the time of release shall be paid at the monthly rate of at
least $350 per month. Further details concerning payment instructions
will be set forth in the Judgment and Commitment Order.
It's further ordered to pay to the United States a special
assessment of $200 which is due immediately. In light of the
restitution obligation, I will waive the fine or cost of incarceration
here. You may be seated, sir.
Following the completion of your custodial sentence and while on
supervised release you must comply with three categories of
conditions. Mandatory conditions, standard conditions, and special
conditions. The mandatory conditions and standard conditions I will
not go over now, but they will be included in the judgment and
commitment order that you receive.
The special conditions are as follows. First, you must
participate in a cognitive behavioral treatment program.
Second, you must make a full and complete disclosure of your
finances to the probation office.
Third, you must not incur new credit charges or open additional
lines of credit without the approval of the probation office.
Fourth, you must submit your person, property, electronic
communications and devices to a search conducted by a probation
officer. Any search must be conducted only when reasonable suspicion
exists that you have violated a condition of your supervised release
and the search may produce evidence of that violation. Finally, you
must allow your property to be confiscated or disposed of if it is
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 22 of 32
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
22
found to be contraband or have evidentiary value. Further details
concerning your conditions of supervised release will be included in
the Judgment and Commitment Order that you receive.
Let me explain the reasoning for my sentence which, again, is a
total sentence of 41 months of imprisonment broken down in 33 months
on Counts One and Two of the criminal case, 24-CR-304, and a
consecutive sentence of 8 months in the supervised release case of
13-CR-238.
We start with the statutory maximums for these offenses,
Mr. Jordan, which, as I stated at the outset of the hearing, Count One
carries a statutory maximum of up to 20 years in prison. Count Two
carries a statutory maximum of 30 years in prison. The supervised
release hearing carried a statutory maximum of up to 5 years in
prison. So I was legally authorized to sentence you up to 55 years in
prison for these offenses which I hope reflects for you, sir, the
seriousness of the crimes you have committed. The guideline sentence
was 33 to 41 months for the new criminal conduct and 24 to 30 months
for the supervised release violation. So this sentence, although I
recognize is significant and more than what the parties had asked for,
is still well below what the guidelines recommend. The need for that
is reflected in the 3553(a) factors.
Let me also point out what also Mr. Kish mentioned, which is
that notwithstanding the parties' joint agreement in the plea
agreement that any sentence in the supervised release hearing would
run concurrent to this new criminal conduct, I did flag for the
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 23 of 32
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
23
parties that I was not inclined to agree with that recommendation and
I did that before Mr. Jordan pled guilty in the case.
In looking at the sentencing goals under 3553(a), we start with
general deterrence which is the need to send a message to the
community at large about the seriousness of this type of conduct and
that it translates into real consequences when you commit it.
As a general matter, general deterrence is more important in
white collar and fraud cases than in any other because these cases are
hard to investigate, they're difficult to prosecute, and not everyone
ultimately who engages in this conduct does get prosecuted. And so
when people are prosecuted for it there is the utmost importance to
deter others who might be inclined to engage in similar conduct, that
is of paramount importance in these types of cases, which have taken
advantage of government programs that were designed to help every
single American taxpayer.
Although the Small Business Administration is listed as the
victim for this offense, the reality is that every single taxpayer is
a victim of this offense and the consequences of -- the collateral
consequences of this type of fraud is almost impossible to quantify
because every time the government -- every time the country faces some
sort of crisis, and that could be a financial crisis, it could be a
public-health crisis like we had, the federal government tries to step
in, all right, or at least has in recent memory with programs that are
designed to keep small businesses afloat.
The only way that those programs can work, when people are
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 24 of 32
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
24
facing an imminent crisis, is to work off of an honor system that
trusts that people who apply for this money are being honest and when
those programs are taken advantage of with conduct like Mr. Jordan's
it denies honest businesses from receiving this money and that's
exactly what happened with these programs when it first rolled out.
The money came out and ran out before people who had legitimate needs
were able to take advantage of it and, as it turned out, a very
significant portion of that money went to people who were not actually
eligible for those funds, including people like Mr. Jordan.
As a result of that, it makes it that much more difficult to get
these types of programs implemented in the future because the pushback
is that it costs too much money and that there's too much fraud
associated with it that is difficult to detect. So like I said, the
consequences of conduct like this is very difficult to quantify and
will continue in the future as a result of the fraud that occurred
with the covid-related programs.
Typically with defendants who have engaged in covid-related
program fraud, it's usually their first interaction with the criminal
justice system or at least certainly the first serious interaction
with the criminal justice system and usually the need for specific
deterrence is pretty low; that is, whether there's a need to deter
Mr. Jordan himself from engaging in criminal conduct again. Of course
that's not the case here.
In fact, here the need for specific deterrence is high because
Mr. Jordan had already committed very serious felonies and, in fact,
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 25 of 32
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
25
had just completed a 72-month sentence in this very courthouse 6
months before he started engaging in new felony criminal conduct and
so the need to deter Mr. Jordan and get through to him that this type
of behavior translates into real consequences is high.
Certainly the fact that Mr. Jordan used his mother and his
mother's bank account to engage in this fraud only serves as an
aggravating factor here as well and, again, reflects his poor
decisionmaking, all of which leads to why I have imposed, among other
things, the need for Mr. Jordan to participate in cognitive behavioral
treatment following his release from imprisonment because I hope that
it is a program like that that will help you, Mr. Jordan, improve your
decisionmaking and help you make better decisions in the future.
As I said, I did not ultimately impose a fine because of the
significant restitution amount, but I do agree with the government
that there are a lot of questions that have been raised with regard to
Mr. Jordan's financial ability to pay and hopefully the U.S. Probation
Office can get those questions answered adequately during his term of
supervised release.
In all, I've considered all of the sentencing goals under
3553(a) and I find this sentence is reasonable and complies with its
objectives.
Now, Mr. Jordan, as we went over during your plea hearing, you
entered into a plea agreement with the government in this case which,
with very limited exceptions, waived most of your rights to appeal
your conviction and sentence. Those waivers are generally
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 26 of 32
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
26
enforceable. But you do, nevertheless, have a right to present your
position to the appellate court. With few exceptions, any notice of
appeal must be filed within 14 days of judgment being entered in your
case.
If you're unable to pay the cost of your appeal, you may apply
for permission to appeal without the payment of fees. If you request,
the clerk of this court will prepare and file a notice of appeal on
your behalf and you may apply for court-appointed counsel. If you
have any further questions about your appellate rights, please discuss
that further with Mr. Kish after the hearing.
Do you recall, Mr. Bradford or Mr. Kish, whether -- as I was
reading this, I was thinking does the waiver in the plea agreement
cover the supervised release sentence or only the new criminal
conduct?
MR. BRADFORD: I don't recall, Your Honor. I'll look at the
provision real quick.
THE COURT: Well, I'll let Mr. Kish look at that, if
necessary. But let me just clarify, Mr. Jordan. It may be that you
don't have a waiver associated with the 8-month sentence that I impose
on the supervised release hearing and Mr. Kish can give you proper
advice about that.
Do the parties have any objections to the sentence or the manner
in which it was pronounced?
MR. BRADFORD: No objection, Your Honor.
Just one question -- or verification. Will the conditions of
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 27 of 32
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
27
supervised release include provisions regarding financial disclosures
and limitations on opening lines of credit?
THE COURT: Yes. I did read that.
MR. BRADFORD: Okay. Thank you.
THE COURT: Yes. And I read them off and -- I read a shorter
version of it but the Judgment and Commitment Order will have the
standard language.
MR. BRADFORD: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. KISH: Three points, two of which maybe deal with the
judgment and commitment.
First -- actually, all three do. Paragraph 129 has a place
where my client says he tells the probation officer he doesn't -- he's
not interested in substance abuse treatment. But the preceding
Paragraphs 123 through 128 to me just cry out for somebody who could
benefit from a residential drug and alcohol program and I would ask
the Court to consider including that in the Judgment and Commitment
Order.
Second, lately what I ask for is just for the judgment to say --
ask BOP to consider the closest place to the defendant's residence.
I've noticed that does as much as anything because they seem to shift
around what they consider to be custody levels. We ask that the
judgment include that recommendation, that the Bureau of Prisons place
Mr. Jordan in a facility as close to Atlanta as possible.
And then, finally, we would ask -- I don't know if we're at this
point yet. But we would ask the Court to consider allowing him to
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 28 of 32
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
28
voluntarily surrender. This negotiation has been going on since the
search happened, frankly, in December of 2020. It's been no mystery
what's about to happen here. My client has been in constant contact
with me. We negotiated with the government through this case. He was
released on an unsecured bond when he pled and admitted to the
violations of supervised release. We think he's a good candidate for
voluntary surrender and we would ask the Court to allow him to do so.
THE COURT: Okay. Well, as for the RDAP request, I'm
certainly happy to recommend that he be evaluated for the program and
I will recommend that he be designated close to Atlanta.
My question, though, is about objections. Do you have any
objections you want to state for the record?
MR. KISH: No.
THE COURT: Okay. So now let's take up, then, the question of
voluntary surrender.
What's the government's position on that?
MR. BRADFORD: The government makes reference to the statute
but notes that, like Mr. Kish said, this is no surprise to Mr. Jordan,
he's known this is coming for a long time, and I believe he's been
generally compliant with the terms of his bond.
THE COURT: Okay. Any modifications to his bond that you're
requesting?
MR. BRADFORD: As a procedural matter, Your Honor, I believe
that we may need an order placing him on bond for the supervised
release revocation in particular because without that -- without him
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 29 of 32
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
29
being on some kind of bond for the revocation, if he fails to appear
when designated, then we'll have no ability to issue a warrant for him
at that time.
THE COURT: Is he no longer on supervised release? Did that
time run?
MR. BRADFORD: Well, it was revoked, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Right. And he's not on bond for that?
MR. BRADFORD: Correct. That's my understanding.
THE COURT: Okay.
PROBATION OFFICER: That is correct.
MR. KISH: The supervised release period has not yet expired.
It ends in September of this year. Now, the fact that there was a
revocation I don't think necessarily causes the supervision to end. I
think that still exists. But if the government feels more comfortable
with an order placing him on release prior to designation, I'm fine
with that, too. I don't really care.
PROBATION OFFICER: Your Honor can do it one of two ways. You
can either do a bond or you can incorporate it in your revocation
order that you want him still supervised by the U.S. Probation Office
until he self-surrenders, that way there is a mechanism for the U.S.
Probation Office to request a warrant should Mr. Jordan not show up.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll do that. That seems like the easiest
thing to do. I'll just indicate that he's on the same conditions as
his new case.
MR. BRADFORD: Thank you, Your Honor.
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 30 of 32
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
30
I will say that I did have a confusing case last year where
something occurred in between the time of revocation and when the
person surrendered and there being no bond or order continuing release
did become an issue and the judge was not able to issue a warrant
during that time. So that is a procedural issue.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
PROBATION OFFICER: Your Honor, you may have stated this and I
just may have missed it. But did you order a set amount for
restitution payments? I know you ordered the general amount.
THE COURT: Yes, I did. I did $350 per month.
PROBATION OFFICER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything else for us to take up?
MR. BRADFORD: Not from the government, Your Honor.
MR. KISH: Not from the defendant, Judge.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Mr. Jordan, I wish you well.
All right. We're in recess.
(Proceedings concluded at 3:40 p.m.)
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 31 of 32
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
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
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 5th day of September, 2025.
/S/ Alicia B. Bagley
ALICIA B. BAGLEY, RMR, CRR
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
(706) 378-4017
Case 1:24-cr-00304-SDG Document 15 Filed 09/05/25 Page 32 of 32File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.335268.15.0.pdf
- Size
- 378,567 bytes
- SHA-256
- 448c18d0726103098d1276cfd48edc04628c2b80eeae2ec0a57992a5b042eecc
- Original
- PACER (login required)