Sentencing Memorandum as to Carla Jackson — USA v. Thomas et al. (Dkt. 987, N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS · Doc. 987 · 2024-05-03 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES                               
) 
 
 
                                                             
)   
 
             v.                                             
)         
                                                              
)   CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 
 
CARLA JACKSON,  
 
 
)   1:20-CR-296-5-JPB-CMS 
 
 
 
Defendant  
) 
 
________________________________ ) 
 
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM  
AND MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE 
AND DOWNWARD DEPARTURE 
 
 
COMES NOW Defendant CARLA JACKSON, by and through 
undersigned counsel, and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3553, 18 U.S.C. § 3582, 18 
U.S.C. § 3584, and 18 U.S.C. § 3661, hereby submits this her “Sentencing 
Memorandum and Motion for Downward Variance and Downward 
Departure” for the Court’s consideration in determining an appropriate 
sentence.  
 
For the reasons contained herein, and as to be more fully argued at 
his sentencing hearing, Defendant respectfully requests that the Court 
grant Ms. Jackson a downward variance from the Presentence 
Investigation Report’s (hereafter “PSR”) estimated guideline sentence. 
 
Defendant will ask that the Court consider a probation sentence, or a 
sentence that includes home detention or minimal custody time and 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 1 of 20

 
2
believes such a resolution would be more than an adequate sentence under 
the guidelines and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). 
 
In support of his motion for a downward variance, Defendant shows 
the following: 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Ms. Jackson was one of two defendants1 in this case who proceeded 
to trial in February of this year. After a two-week long presentation of 
evidence and arguments, the jury deliberated and rendered guilty verdicts 
against Ms. Jackson on February 15, 2024.2  
The (initial) presentence report (“PSR”), prepared by the United 
States Probation Office, set Ms. Jackson’s Total Offense Level at 20, a 
Criminal History Category I, with a corresponding custody guideline 
range of 33 to 41 months.3 
 
1 Co-defendant Teldin Foster also proceeded to trial.  
 
2 Ms. Jackson was charged in two counts of the Second Superseding 
Indictment, counts 46 and 47, charging her with (concealment) money 
laundering. At trial, Mr. Teldrin Foster was found guilty of all 41 counts he 
faced. 
 
3 U.S. Probation assigned Ms. Jackson a base offense level of 8 under USSG 
§ 2S1.1(a)(2) and an additional 12-level increase using the loss table in 
USSG § 2B1.1(1)(G). It added another 2-point increase under USSG § 
2S1.1(b)(2)(B) for being found guilty under 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Since Ms. 
Jackson had no criminal history points, she received a 2-point reduction 
pursuant to USSG §§ 4C1.1(a)(1)-(10) as a Zero-Point-Offender. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 2 of 20

 
3
Both Ms. Jackson and the Government have filed objections to the 
initial PSR. 
II. 
BACKGROUND 
 
Determining a Reasonable Sentence 
 
The primary directive in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) is for sentencing courts 
to "impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply 
with the purposes set forth in paragraph 2." Section 3553(a)(2) states that 
such purposes are:  
1. to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect 
for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense; 
2. to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;  
3. to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; 
and  
4. to provide the defendant with needed educational or 
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 
treatment in the most effective manner.  
 
In determining the minimally sufficient sentence, § 3553(a) further 
directs sentencing courts to consider the following factors:  
1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 
characteristics of the defendant;  
2. the kinds of sentences available;  
3. the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 
similar conduct; and  
4. the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.  
 
Other statutory sections also give the district court direction in 
sentencing.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 3 of 20

 
4
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, imposition of a term of imprisonment is 
subject to the following limitation: "in determining whether and to what 
extent imprisonment is appropriate based on the Section 3553(a) factors, 
the judge is required to "recogniz[e] that imprisonment is not an 
appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation"" (emphasis 
added).  
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3661, "no limitation shall be placed on the 
information concerning the background, character, and conduct of [the 
defendant] which a court of the United States may receive and consider for 
the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence" (emphasis added).  
In United State v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), the United States 
Supreme Court directed the district courts to sentence defendants with 
due regard to the sentencing purposes and factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 
3553. Booker, 543 U.S. at 245-46. While the Court is required to consider the 
ranges set forth in the Guidelines, the Court must fashion a sentence in 
light of other statutory concerns and determine a reasonable sentence. The 
Guidelines, which Booker made “effectively advisory,” id. at 245, “should 
be the starting point and the initial benchmark,” but district courts may 
impose sentences within the statutory limits based on appropriate 
consideration of all of the § 3553 factors. Specifically, judges are required to 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 4 of 20

 
5
“impose sentences that reflect the seriousness of the offense, promote 
respect for the law, provide just punishment, afford adequate deterrence, 
protect the public, and effectively provide the defendant with needed 
training and medical care.” Id. (citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)). 
Overall, the sentencing court must impose a sentence that comports 
with all of these factors and is “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” 
to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Thus, 
“extraordinary circumstances” are no longer required to justify a sentence 
outside the Guidelines Range, as long as the record shows that the judge 
considered the § 3553 factors and supported the sentence by facts applied 
to those factors. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007). Thus, a district 
court shall fashion a reasonable individualized sentence based on § 3553 
factors. Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229 (2011). 
A. Nature of the Offense 
This case involved twenty named codefendants as participants, in 
varying degrees and roles, who – according to the Government’s charging 
document - fraudulently obtained monies through the Paycheck Protection 
Program (“PPP”), a program passed by Congress in response to the 2020 
COVID-19 pandemic that affected the country and the world. The purpose 
of the PPP program was to provide funding for small businesses in the 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 5 of 20

 
6
United States and to their employees in the context of COVID-19 and its 
economic impact that caused market downturns, rising unemployment, 
and nationwide lockdowns. 
Ms. Jackson’s place in the Government’s (Second) Superseding 
Indictment was very minor compared to other defendants in this case. She 
was charged in two of the sixty-three counts in the Indictment, counts 46 
and 47, for the alleged money laundering of funds transferred into her 
business bank account (Management Resource Services Inc., hereafter 
“MRS Inc.”) from the bank account of Gaines Reservation and Travel, an 
account managed by codefendants Andre Gaines and John Gaines.  
Ms. Jackson never submitted a loan application for PPP funds and 
never fraudulently represented to any financial institution that she needed 
funds for any payroll, or other expenses related to her own business. 
The Government, by charging Ms. Jackson in the underlying 
Indictment, believed that she knew that the funds transferred into her 
business bank account in June 2020 were funds fraudulently obtained by 
Gaines Reservation and Travel, and by codefendants Andre Gaines and 
John Gaines, and that by permitting these fund transfers, Ms. Jackson 
knowingly and intentionally laundered the monies in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 6 of 20

 
7
Ms. Jackson denied the allegations of wrongdoing, but a jury 
determined otherwise at the conclusion of her trial in February. 
B.  History and Characteristics of the Defendant 
Ms. Jackson is not a prototypical defendant.  
She is highly educated and a business professional who has more 
than 26 years of experience in program management positions, including 
more than 19 years working for IBM Corporation as a senior program 
manager and senior business analyst. At the time of the alleged money 
transfers referenced in counts 46 and 47 of the Indictment, Ms. Jackson was 
gainfully employed and NOT someone seeking fraudulently obtained 
monies from the PPP program. During this time period (June 2020), Ms. 
Jackson was employed at DXC Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, making a 
$144,000 yearly salary (verified by U.S. Probation).4  
Although the Government’s evidence during trial showed that Ms. 
Jackson’s separate company, MRS Inc., did not bring in significant income 
during 2020, that company’s low income did not motivate Ms. Jackson to 
seek alternate – and illegal – means to supplement her income.  
There is no evidence to support an argument that greed was a 
motivating factor in this case involving Ms. Jackson. 
 
4 See attached Exhibit “A” (copy of Ms. Jackson’s resume’) 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 7 of 20

 
8
Ms. Jackson would not need any extra money outside of her career 
occupation in program management. And she certainly would not have 
committed PPP loan fraud or money laundering to get her extra money. 
The jury, as mentioned above, found otherwise in its verdict. But 
integral to the Government’s case against Ms. Jackson was co-defendant 
John Gaines, someone who admitted to lying, cheating, and committing 
fraud in his life. And Mr. Gaines lied, cheated, and committed fraud 
against his ex-wife, Carla Jackson.5 And she now suffers the legal 
consequences of that tragic relationship in this case.  
If the Court or the Government were to believe that such an 
educated and professional background should somehow work against Ms. 
Jackson’s argument for a lenient sentence, undesigned counsel would 
simply point the Court and the Government to innumerable instances 
where even very educated and professional women (or men) can be duped 
and betrayed by intimate partners, over years, and years, and years. 
The PSR contains a good overview of Ms. Jackson’s personal 
background and history. But Ms. Jackson asks the Court to also read 
through and consider the numerous letters submitted in support of her for 
 
5 Among just some of the secrets that John Gaines kept from her during 
their 30 years of knowing each other, Ms. Jackson learned that Mr. Gaines 
had fathered multiple children outside of their marriage with different 
women. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 8 of 20

 
9
sentencing hearing (see attached Exhibit “C” containing copies of 40 
separate letters from friends, family members, and business professionals). 
Through all these letters, Ms. Jackson is shown to be an extremely honest, 
caring, charitable, dependable, hardworking, and loving person. 
Ms. Jackson has no prior state or federal criminal convictions of any 
kind. 
Ms. Jackson has no history of violence. 
Ms. Jackson has no history of past fraud or theft. 
Ms. Jackson has no history of past drug or alcohol abuse. 
And, at the age of 56, Ms. Jackson is an extremely low risk for 
recidivism. 
The “nature of the offense” and “history and characteristics of the 
defendant” all point to the rendering of a sentence below the 
recommended guideline range for Defendant. 
C. Other § 3553 factors  
 
Defendant believes that a downward variance from the estimated 
guidelines sentence referenced in the PSR will achieve the goals in 
imposing a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to provide just 
punishment, to deter future criminal conduct, and to protect the public.  
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 9 of 20

 
10
 
Seriousness of the offense 
 
Ms. Jackson does not dispute that PPP fraud is a serious crime. She 
does maintain that her role in this offense, as presented by the 
Government during trial, was at most, minimal or minor. 
The need for adequate deterrence 
Defendant expects that the Government will stress the important 
need for general deterrence for sentencing in white collar crime 
prosecutions and that a sentence of probation, for example, will not 
provide the same level of deterrence that the threat of incarceration in a 
federal penitentiary would. 
As a broad statement about deterrence, that position may have some 
merit, but when applied to a specific defendant like Ms. Jackson, with her 
unique background, work experience, and complete lack of criminal 
history (no prior convictions), its importance fades quickly. A significant 
“below-guidelines” sentence would greatly dissuade Ms. Jackson from 
being involved with any Government-backed loan programs, or with any 
bank-financed loans that she was not directly involved with as an actual 
applicant. 
Deterrence is admittedly important in the context of certain crimes 
that “may go easily undetected and unpublished.” See, e.g., United States v. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 10 of 20

 
11
McQueen, 727 F.3d 1144, 1158-59 (11th Cir. 2013). The Government, in 
filings for other defendants in this case, has argued this exact point and 
cited a statistic that approximately 12.3% of the PPP loans granted to small 
businesses, totaling $64.2 billion, have at least one indicator of potential 
fraud. (See, e.g., Doc. 535, p. 12). The Government argued that “. . . because 
of the sheer number of PPP loans as well as the streamlined 
documentation necessary to obtain them, the United States is unlikely to 
detect and/or prosecute most individuals who obtained fraudulent PPP 
loans, . . . [and that [t]he need for general deterrence is therefore significant 
. . . .” Id.  
The Government’s argument for general deterrence is admittedly 
based, in large part, on the weak financial controls set into place for the 
PPP loan program (its “streamlined” nature). In other words, and 
somewhat paradoxically, because the Government set up a program 
woefully inadequate to spot fraudulent applications, we must punish 
every PPP defendant more harshly to deter the general public from taking 
advantage of this poorly established (and regulated) program. But the 
need for “general deterrence” for PPP loan fraud has significantly 
decreased as the SBA has investigated and identified many areas of 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 11 of 20

 
12
improvement to the PPP loan process, and corrective actions have already 
been (and continue to be) implemented.6   
The continuing need for “general deterrence” in the PPP loan 
landscape has changed, fundamentally, and any specific deterrence has 
already been accomplished as to Ms. Jackson, whose longtime career as a 
senior project manager for major companies is forever marred with the 
blemish of a felony conviction with all its attendant (and lifetime) collateral 
consequences.7 
Defendant asks that the Court take all of Section 3553 factors into 
consideration for fashioning a proper sentence. 
D. PSR GUIDELINES 
Defendant filed objections to the initial PSR, including an objection 
to the loss amount assigned to her (and related total offense level),8 and to 
the lack of a mitigating role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.2. Although not 
 
6 See “COVID-19 Pandemic EIDL and PPP Loan Fraud Landscape,” White 
Paper, Report 23-09, June 27, 2023, pp. 4-6. Copy attached as Exhibit “B”. 
 
7 For a defendant like Ms. Jackson, who took decades building a successful 
professional career, providing “just punishment” for the offense in 
sentencing is amply provided for through the scarlet letter that a felony 
conviction brings, and the end of a long, successful work history. 
 
8 Defendant is withdrawing her objection to the loss amount calculated in 
the PSR (and her citation to United States v. Banks, 55 F.4th 246 (3d Cir. 
2022)). The loss amount objections were made to paragraphs 82, 93, 95, and 
103 in the initial PSR. Those paragraph objections are withdrawn. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 12 of 20

 
13
included in her original PSR objections, Ms. Jackson has notified U.S. 
Probation that she also objects to the Government’s argument for an 
obstruction enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 (this objection was filed as 
part of the Government’s response to the initial PSR).  
Minimal (Mitigating) Role Adjustment under § 3B1.2 
Ms. Jackson is asking the Court to apply a “minimal” mitigating role 
adjustment of four points pursuant to U.S.S.G. §§ 3B1.2(a), since Defendant 
is “plainly among the least culpable of those involved” in the underlying 
conduct in the group of twenty codefendants. (Application Note 4). 
Defendant's “lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and 
structure of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a 
role as minimal participant.” Id.  
Two principles inform the determination of the defendant’s role in 
the offense: (1) the defendant’s role in the relevant conduct for which he is 
held accountable at sentencing; and (2) the defendant’s role as compared to 
other participants role in that relevant conduct. See United States v. De 
Varon, 175 F.3d 9030, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) (en banc). 
The decision about whether to apply a role reduction is “based on 
the totality of the circumstances” and is “heavily dependent upon the facts 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 13 of 20

 
14
of the particular case.” USSG § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C). The district court should 
consider to the extent applicable following non-exhaustive list of factors: 
a. the degree to which the defendant understood the scope 
and structure of the criminal activity; 
b. the degree to which the defendant participated in planning 
or organizing the criminal activity; 
c. the degree to which the defendant exercised decision-
making authority or influenced the exercise of decision-
making authority;  
d. the nature and extent of the defendant’s participation in 
the commission of the criminal activity, including the acts 
the defendant performed and the responsibility and 
discretion the defendant had in performing those acts; 
e. the degree to which the defendant stood to benefit from the 
criminal activity. 
USSG § 3B1.2 cmt. n.3(C); United States v. Valois, 915 F.3d 717, 732 
(11th Cir. 2019). 
 
In the instant case, Ms. Jackson’s role (in relation to John Gaines’ and 
Andre Gaines’ roles, and in relation to the roles of the remaining seventeen 
codefendants) was minimal.  
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 14 of 20

 
15
a. There is no evidence showing that Defenant understood the 
scope or structure of the overall criminal activity in this case. And 
as to her role compared to Andre Gaines and John Gaines? The 
Gaines were solely responsible for submitting a fraudulent PPP 
loan application and receiving disbursed PPP funds. Ms. Jackson 
had no participation in drafting or preparing any such 
application or supporting documents. 
b. There is no evidence showing that Ms. Jackson planned or 
organized the criminal activity. Again, this was John Gaines and 
Andre Gaines, or others in the broader conspiracy, of which Ms. 
Jackson was not a part. 
c. There is no evidence that Ms. Jackson exercised decision-making 
authority or influenced such. There was no evidence presented at 
trial (emails, phone calls, phone evidence, letters, bank 
documents, etc.) that supports this factor.  
d. Ms. Jackson’s role in the offense – as shown by the Government’s 
trial evidence – was that her business bank account for MRS Inc. 
was used by John and Andre Gaines to transfer money from 
Gaines Reservation and Travel to MRS Inc.’s bank account, 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 15 of 20

 
16
money that originated from PPP loan proceeds and fraudulently 
obtained by John and Andre Gaines, not Carla Jackson. 
e. The final factor – what Ms. Jackson stood to benefit from the 
alleged criminal activity – is unclear. Certainly, loan proceeds 
from the PPP loan obtained by Gaines Reservation and Travel 
(John and Andre Gaines) made their way into Defendant’s 
business bank account. John Gaines directed Ms. Jackson to 
withdraw $30,000 and to get three cashiers’ checks for $10,000 
each. All three were made payable to entities related to John 
Gaines, as he directed Ms. Jackson to do. Additionally, the 
Government recovered the bulk of the PPP funds from Ms. 
Jackson’s bank account on June 18, 2020 through a seizure order. 
A review of these factors supports a finding that Defendant deserves 
a mitigating role adjustment. Ms. Jackson believes the role adjustment 
should be a 4-point reduction for a minimal participant under USSG § 
3B1.2(a). 
Government argument for USSG § 3C1.1 enhancement 
The Government, in PSR objections it filed with U.S. Probation, is 
arguing for an enhancement to Ms. Jackson’s offense level for obstruction 
under USSG § 3C1.1. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 16 of 20

 
17
Defendant objects to this enhancement. 
The Government’s bases for requesting the enhancement appears to 
center on an indicted and convicted co-defendant, Andre Gaines, who was 
convicted in a related case (1:21-CR-206) of making a false statement to a 
federal officer (18 U.S.C. § 1001). And the Government does so through the 
use of a signed declaration by the same person convicted of giving false 
statements (Andre Gaines). Of note: the Government never called Andre 
Gaines as a witness for its case during trial, even though Andre Gaines’ 
company was central to the transfer of PPP funds from Andre Gaines’ 
business bank account (Gaines Reservation and Travel) to Ms. Jackson’s 
business bank account (MRS Inc.). 
The Court can rely on hearsay evidence during a sentencing hearing 
“so long as the evidence has sufficient indicia of reliability to support its 
probable accuracy, and provided that the defendant has ‘the opportunity 
to rebut the evidence or generally to cast doubt upon its reliability.’” 
United States v. Meyers, 820 Fed. Appx. 958, 960-61 (11th Cir. 2020). In the 
present case, the Government is relying on a written declaration from a 
convicted liar and asking the Court to find that it has sufficient indicia of 
reliability without his live testimony.9 
 
9 Mr. Andre Gaines also received a five-year probated sentence. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 17 of 20

 
18
The Court should demand more and require that Andre Gaines 
provide in-person testimony at the sentencing hearing on the issue of an 
obstruction enhancement argument, so that he can be subject to cross 
examination by defense counsel. Andre Gaines writing declarations from 
afar, and being a convicted liar, does not meet even a minimal standard for 
“sufficient indicia of reliability” for this or any court. 
In addition to the Government’s reliance on a signed document from 
Andre Gaines, and without his live in-court testimony, the Government 
also argues for an obstruction enhancement based on the Grand Jury 
subpoena return that was completed by Ms. Jackson for her company, 
MRS Inc.  
The Government should recall, however, that during Special Agent 
Stites’ cross examination during trial, Agent Stites was questioned by 
defense counsel about missing pages from the Grand Jury subpoena he left 
with Ms. Jackson when he conducted his knock-and-talk interview at her 
house. Agent Stites could not confirm that he gave a complete subpoena 
with Ms. Jackson, and Agent Stites admitted during his cross-examination 
testimony that the subpoena return sent back by Ms. Jackson had missing 
pages in it (pages 2 and 3, and possibly more pages). Agent Stites testified 
that he never contacted Ms. Jackson about these missing exhibit pages, and 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 18 of 20

 
19
he admitted not noticing the missing pages or responses until his trial 
testimony in February of 2024.10 
Defendant objects to an enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 for 
obstruction and will provide additional argument at sentencing, as 
needed. 
E. CONCLUSION 
 
In submitting this memorandum and motion for downward 
variance, Ms. Jackson requests that the Court fashion a reasonable sentence 
taking into consideration all 18 U.S.C. § 3553 factors, and after hearing 
further argument from Defendant at her upcoming sentencing hearing. 
 
 
Defendant is asking the Court to consider a sentence that includes 
either probation, home detention, or a minimal amount of custody time 
well below the applicable guideline range. 
 
This 3rd day of May, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  David D. Marshall       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David D. Marshall 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Georgia Bar No. 471517 
 
10 Defendant also notes that section “I” referenced in the cover page of Ms. 
Jackson’s subpoena return, which section discusses communications, is 
also missing from the subpoena return sent back by Ms. Jackson, and not 
noticed by Agent Stites (what would appear to be page “7” but is missing). 
The subpoena sent to Ms. Jackson was incomplete, and now the 
Government argues that her responses were incomplete, justifying an 
obstruction enhancement. This is, respectfully, absurd. 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 19 of 20

 
20
2550 Sandy Plains Road 
Suite 225, PMB 349 
Marietta, Georgia 30066 
(404) 213-1358 (phone) 
david.marshall@esquireguy.com 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
This is to certify that the foregoing was formatted in 13-point Book 
Antiqua, in accordance with Local Rule 5.1C, and was electronically filed 
this day with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which will 
automatically send email notification to all parties of record. 
 
This 3rd day of May, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/  David D. Marshall       
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
David D. Marshall 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Georgia Bar No. 471517 
2550 Sandy Plains Road 
Suite 225, PMB 349 
Marietta, Georgia 30066 
(404) 213-1358 (phone) 
david.marshall@esquireguy.com 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00296-JPB-CMS     Document 987     Filed 05/03/24     Page 20 of 20

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.279867.987.0.pdf

Size

252,448 bytes

SHA-256

5eddf1efb09c797a9444a6e1bff1ba07f4776b81e1bb75fd8384bfe5031689da

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.279867.987.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)