Response to Motion by USA as to Willie Curry — United States v. Curry (Dkt. 24, S.D. Fla. No. 1:21-cr-20415)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:21-cr-20415-JLK · Doc. 24 · 2021-11-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
Case No. 21-20415-Cr-KING/O’SULLIVAN 
      
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
WILLIE CURRY  
 
Defendant. 
_________________________________/ 
 
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S REQUEST FOR VARIANCE  
FROM ADVISORY SENTENCING GUIDELINES 
 
COMES NOW the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United 
States Attorney, and files this Response to defendant Willie Curry’s Motion for Downward 
Variance from the Advisory Sentencing Guidelines (DE: 23), stating as follows: 
Factual Background and Procedural History 
On June 24, 2020, the defendant, a full-time employee of Miami-Dade County, 
submitted an online application containing materially false information to the Small 
Business Administration (“SBA”) seeking an Economic Injury Disaster Loan claiming that 
a small business he owned and operated had been significantly impacted by the COVID-
19 pandemic.  Based on that false application, the SBA approved and disbursed to the 
defendant’s financial institution a $10,000 advance and a $150,000 low interest loan 
intended for the defendant.  However, as explained in the Pre-Sentence Investigation 
Report (“PSR”), the defendant ultimately never was able to obtain any of this money 
because it was returned to the SBA by his financial institution (PSR at ¶¶17-18).   
When the fraudulent nature of this application was discovered by law enforcement, 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 1 of 7

2 
 
the defendant was contacted and on April 23, 20201, he voluntarily met with federal law 
enforcement agents and gave a statement, admitting that he had grossly inflated the 
gross revenues, cost of goods sold, and number of employees to obtain the loan.  Shortly 
thereafter, the defendant retained counsel and expressed his desire to resolve the matter 
by accepting responsibility, waiving indictment, and pleading guilty to an Information.  
Following through, on August 30, 2021, before Chief Magistrate Judge John O’Sullivan, 
the defendant entered a plea of guilty to a one-count Information (DE: 1) charging him 
with wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343.  DE: 14; 17.  
The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range 
Under the current post-Booker sentencing regime, this Court is required to first 
compute an advisory Guidelines range, before it applies the 18 U.S.C. '3553(a) factors 
to determine the defendant=s ultimate sentence.  See United States v. Crawford, 407 
F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005).  The PSR computed the Total Offense Level (after 
recommending the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility) to be level 14 
(PSR at ¶32), with the defendant being in Criminal History Category I (PSR at ¶35), 
leading to an advisory Guidelines Zone D sentencing range of 15-21 months (PSR at 
¶¶67, 72).  The government agrees with this conclusion, and requests that the Court find 
the defendant’s advisory Guidelines range to be 15-21 months imprisonment. 
The defendant has now filed a motion asking this Court to grant “a downward 
variance and sentence [the defendant] below the Advisory Sentencing Guidelines to a 
maximum period of Six (6) months of incarceration.”  DE: 23 at 1.  For the reasons that 
will be explained below, the government has no objection to a limited guided downward 
variance of one level to a Total Offense Level of 13, which would put the defendant within 
the Zone C advisory range of 12-18 months of incarceration, and to a low-end sentence 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 2 of 7

3 
 
of 12 months imprisonment, with 6 months to be served in imprisonment and the 
remaining 6 months to be served in community confinement or home detention, as 
allowed by USSG §5C1.1(2).  
The §3553(a) Factors and Defendant’s Request for a Downward Variance 
Once the Court has determined the advisory Guidelines sentencing range, the next 
step is to consider the '3553(a) factors in determining and imposing a reasonable 
sentence.  Although the Court may not simply presume that a sentence within the 
advisory Guidelines range is reasonable, the Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that 
fact that “the Guidelines are to be the sentencing court’s ‘starting point and . . . initial 
benchmark’” and that sentencing courts “’must begin their analysis with the Guidelines 
and remain cognizant of them throughout the sentencing process’”   Molina-Martinez v. 
United States, 136 S.Ct. 1338, 1345 (2016) (citation omitted; emphasis in original).   
Pursuant to §3553(a), the relevant factors to be considered in imposing a sentence 
are: (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics 
of the defendant; (2) the need for the sentence imposed to (A) reflect the seriousness of 
the offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense, (B) 
afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, (C) protect the public from further crimes 
by the defendant, and (D) provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational 
training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) 
the types of sentences available; (4, 5) the advisory Guidelines sentencing range and any 
relevant policy statements; (6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparity; and 
(7) the need to provide restitution.   
 
Section 3553(a)(1) – The Nature of Defendant’s Offense 
The first part of §3553(a)(1) focuses on the nature and circumstances of the 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 3 of 7

 
4 
 
offense committed.  As set out in the Information (DE: 1), Stipulated Factual Basis (DE: 
16), and PSR (DE: 22), the defendant’s offense was an effort to defraud the SBA out of 
COVID-19 relief funds intended to assist small business owners trying to deal with the 
financial hardships and business disruptions caused by the pandemic.  Defrauding the 
government out of funds intended to help struggling small businesspeople is a serious 
offense, particularly since the defendant was a highly-paid county employee whose 
income was not affected by the pandemic and who was not suffering from any pandemic-
related financial hardship.  The money he would have fraudulently obtained would have 
reduced the pool of money available for those genuinely in need and actually entitled to 
the assistance.  
 
Section 3553(a)(1) – The Defendant’s History and Characteristics 
The second part of §3553(a)(1) focuses on the history and characteristics of the 
defendant.  As reflected in the very thorough PSR at ¶¶43-55, and elaborated upon in 
the defendant’s motion, DE: 23 at 4-7, the defendant, apart from a minor brush with the 
law almost 30 years ago, PSR at ¶34, has been a productive law-abiding citizen, a 
supportive father to his children, and an individual devoted to helping the youth of his 
community.  In addition, the defendant served his country for seven years in the United 
States Army, earning an honorable discharge.   
While the defendant’s service to his country and law-abiding life do not excuse his 
serious crime, the government does take note of the fact that the defendant’s crime in this 
case appears to be an isolated episode, and not reflective of how the defendant, now 58-
years old, has conducted himself throughout his life to this point.  This was further 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 4 of 7

 
5 
 
reflected by the fact that the defendant voluntary met with the agent without retaining 
counsel, admitted his wrongdoing, and then almost immediately retained counsel to 
expeditiously resolve the matter by pleading guilty for his crime.  
 
Section 3553(a)(2)  
Section 3553(a)(2) is geared to ensuring that the sentence imposed serves the 
various purposes stated in subparts (A) – (D).  Here, the recommendation of 6 months 
imprisonment combined with another 6 months of home confinement or community 
control, followed by a term of supervised release, on an otherwise law-abiding 58-year 
individual who immediately acknowledged his crime and quickly pled guilty sends a strong 
message that fraud of this type will not be tolerated, thereby deterring others from 
engaging in this conduct.  Since this episode appears to be out of character for the 
defendant, the government also believes that this recommended punishment is sufficient 
to protect the public from the seemingly unlikely chance of future crimes by the defendant.  
 
Section 3553(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) 
These subsections of §3553(a) require consideration of the types of sentences 
available, advisory Guidelines sentencing range and any relevant policy statements in 
determining the final sentence.  The PSR lays out the advisory Guidelines and 
sentencing options in clear and concise terms, noting that without a variance, the 
defendant would be in Zone D, requiring the entire sentence to be served through 
imprisonment.   
The government’s recommended one-level downward variance would place the 
defendant in Zone C, allowing for the recommended “split” sentence of six months in 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 5 of 7

 
6 
 
imprisonment and six months in either home confinement or a community control setting, 
either of which would allow the defendant to obtain and maintain employment, allowing 
him to once again be a productive member of the community.  As further support, the 
government notes that the loss figure for the $150,000 loan, without the separate $10,000 
advance authorized by SBA, would have resulted in the defendant having a Total offense 
Level of 13, thereby allowing the government to recommend this same sentence without 
the need for a one-level downward variance.   
 
Section 3553(a)(6), (a)(7) 
These sub-sections focus on avoiding sentencing disparity and ensuring restitution 
Is made.  Since the defendant ultimately received no money from the SBA, the SBA 
suffered no financial loss and restitution is not required.  Nor is the government aware of 
any cases involving similarly situated defendants and crimes that would indicate that the 
recommended sentence in this case would cause unwarranted sentencing disparity.  
Conclusion 
After consideration of all the relevant advisory Guidelines and statutory factors 
within all the facts and circumstances of the offense and offender in this case, it is the 
government’s position that the Court should grant a one-level downward variance, 
resulting in a Total Offense Level of 13 and Zone C advisory range of 12-18 months 
incarceration.  If this Court does grant that variance, the government respectfully 
suggests that the reasonable and necessary sentence to provide just punishment and 
protect the public would be a period of incarceration of 12 months, with six months served 
in imprisonment and 6 months served in home confinement or community control, as 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 6 of 7

 
7 
 
allowed for by USSG §5C1.1(2).   
WHEREFORE, the government respectfully requests that this Court use its 
discretion to grant a one-level downward variance to impose the above-described 
recommended sentence on the defendant.  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
JUAN ANTONIO GONZALEZ  
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: 
s/Edward N. Stamm   
Edward N. Stamm (FL Bar #373826) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
U.S. Attorney=s Office - SDFL 
99 Northeast Fourth Street, 8th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Telephone: (305) 961-9164 
E-mail: edward.stamm@usdoj.gov 
 
Case 1:21-cr-20415-JLK   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/16/2021   Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.597611.24.0.pdf

Size

161,986 bytes

SHA-256

7c270c3ed07e74a9d645b550894b38c31d7b9604a64145bffec259250704f9bb

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.597611.24.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)