Response to Motion by USA as to Dejane Reaniece Lattany — USA v. Lattany (Dkt. 24, D. Colo.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado · No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW · Doc. 24 · 2023-08-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 
 
Criminal Case No.  23-cr-00074-NYW 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
 
1. 
DEJANE REANIECE LATTANY, 
 
 
Defendant.                                  
_____________________________________________________________________ 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING STATEMENT AND  
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM (ECF NO. 19) 
_____________________________________________________________________ 
At the August 15, 2023 sentencing hearing, the government will respectfully 
request that the Court sentence defendant Dejane Reaniece Lattany to 51 months’ 
imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ supervised release.  The government will further 
request that the Court enter a restitution order for $3,526,369.51, which represents the 
full amount of loss sustained by the victims of the defendant’s scheme.  
The United States Probation Officer recommends a sentence of 48 months’ 
imprisonment, followed by 3 years’ supervised release.  (ECF No. 22-1 at 2.)  The 
defendant requests a term of imprisonment of 45 months’ imprisonment.  (ECF No. 19 
at 3.)   
I. 
Guideline Calculation 
Following the defendant’s guilty plea to one count of wire fraud in violation of 18 
U.S.C. § 1343, the United States Probation Office submitted to the Court a presentence 
investigation report calculating the defendant’s offense level at 24 and criminal history 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 1
of 10

2 
category at II, which results in a guidelines range of 57–71 months’ imprisonment.  
(ECF No. 22 (“PSR”) ¶¶ 54, 59, 93, ECF No. 22-1 at 2.)   
The defendant’s criminal history category was I at the time of her Change of Plea 
Hearing on April 26, 2023.  Thereafter, on May 22, 2023, the defendant pled guilty to 
felony Medicaid fraud – alter/false/conceal record in Denver County District Court (Case 
No. 2022CR6134).  On the same date, she was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment in 
Colorado Department of Corrections, to run concurrently to any sentence imposed in 
this case, followed by 2 years’ parole.  (PSR ¶ 56.)  As a result of that state sentence, 
the defendant’s criminal history category increased to II.  (Id. ¶ 59.)   
The government agrees that the Probation Office’s calculation of the defendant’s 
criminal history is an accurate statement of the defendant’s criminal history.  See 
USSG §§ 4A1.1(a), 4A1.2, cmt.1.  Nonetheless, the government believes a sentence of 
51 months—the bottom of the guideline range in effect at the time of the defendant’s 
Change of Plea Hearing—is a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than 
necessary, to accomplish the goals of sentencing.1   
II. 
The Government’s Requested Sentence Will Effectuate the Goals 
of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 
During sentencing, the Court must calculate the sentencing range recommended 
by the United States Sentencing Guidelines (“USSG”) and consider the sentencing 
factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  See United States v. Barnes, 890 F.3d 910, 
 
1 To the extent that the Court agrees with the Probation Office’s calculation of the 
criminal history category, the government respectfully requests that the Court construe 
the government’s sentencing statement as a motion for a downward variance.   
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 2
of 10

3 
915 (10th Cir. 2018).  A sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment appropriately balances 
the § 3553(a) factors, particularly the nature and circumstances of the offense and the 
history and characteristics of the defendant, as well as the need for the sentence to 
reflect the seriousness of the crime, deter future criminal conduct, and avoid 
unwarranted sentencing disparities. 
A. 
Nature and Circumstances of the Offense  
This case involves an individual who filed fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster 
Loan (“EIDL”) and Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) applications to obtain more 
than three million dollars of funds that were intended to serve as a lifeline for struggling 
businesses during an unprecedented global pandemic.  These funds were neither free 
nor unlimited: through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, 
Congress authorized limited pools of funds that ran out, after which time businesses 
could no longer take advantage of the programs.   
Significantly, the defendant’s actions were not a momentary lapse of judgment or 
a one-time mistake.  Over the course of 19 months—between June 2020 and January 
2022—the defendant submitted at least fifteen fraudulent EIDL applications (and 
subsequent modification requests) and at least twelve fraudulent PPP applications to 
the SBA and lenders on behalf of eight businesses that she purportedly owned and 
operated: Aggies Angels Care Providers, A&L Care Systems, IGU Management, Mind 
Set Consulting, NB Marketing, Open Arms Secure Watch LLC, Rocky Ridge Consulting, 
and a sole proprietorship in her own name.  In these applications, she made false 
representations and certifications regarding, inter alia, her businesses’ number of 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 3
of 10

4 
employees and average monthly payrolls, the businesses’ gross revenues and cost of 
goods sold, her ownership of other businesses, and her intent to use loan proceeds only 
for business-related purposes in accordance with the PPP and EIDL program 
guidelines.  The defendant further submitted fabricated documents to support her false 
statements regarding her businesses, including fabricated tax documents, wage 
statements, and financial documents.     
As a result of her scheme, the defendant obtained five EIDLs totaling $430,000, 
three Economic Injury Disaster Grants (“EIDGs”) totaling $20,000, and ten PPP loans 
totaling $2,887,976.94.  She then sought—and obtained—loan forgiveness for many of 
these PPP loans by falsely certifying that she used the loan proceeds in accordance 
with PPP requirements, thus ensuring that the cost of her fraudulent PPP loans would 
be borne by the American taxpayer.  And she did not stop there.  She intended to 
obtain additional fraudulent EIDLs, EIDGs, and PPP loans totaling approximately four 
million dollars.  As set forth in the Plea Agreement, the total amount of the EIDL, EIDG, 
and PPP applications, funded and unfunded, attributed to the defendant is 
$7,339,008.94.  (ECF No. 13 at 14 n.4.) 
After receiving seven-figures worth of (illicitly obtained) pandemic-relief funds, the 
defendant used the bulk of these funds for non-business purposes.  She transferred 
significant sums to her own bank accounts, transferred funds to her relatives, purchased 
a 2009 Hummer H2 SUT Luxury vehicle, made payments on a 2008 Hummer Utility 
Passenger vehicle, purchased real estate in Commerce City, Colorado, and paid off 
credit card bills.  (PSR ¶¶ 27–37.)  Her frivolous spending surely would have continued 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 4
of 10

5 
without the government’s swift pursuit of civil seizure orders, the proceeds of which 
represent the large bulk of what has been and can be quickly recovered as a result of 
this fraud. 
The nature and circumstances of the defendant’s offense warrants a sentence of 
51 months’ imprisonment.    
B. 
History and Characteristics of the Defendant  
 
The defendant is 33 years’ old.  While this defendant appears to have had a 
difficult childhood, the PSR and numerous letters submitted on her behalf suggest that 
she has the benefit of supportive family members.  She has also had numerous 
educational opportunities and has previously operated her own businesses, suggesting 
that she had other opportunities to make legitimate income.  As the Seventh Circuit has 
recognized, “[c]riminals who have the education and training that enables people to 
make a decent living without resorting to crime are more rather than less culpable than 
their desperately poor and deprived brethren in crime.”  United States v. Stefonek, 179 
F.3d 1030, 1038 (7th Cir. 1999).   
However, this is not the defendant’s only run-in with the law.  In May 2023, the 
defendant pled guilty in Denver County District Court to Medicaid fraud and waste under 
Colorado Revised Statute § 24-31-808(1)(g), (4).  She was sentenced to two years’ 
imprisonment to be served concurrent to any term of imprisonment imposed in the 
instant case, followed by 2 years’ parole, and was further ordered to pay restitution in 
the amount of $372,150.47.  The fact that this is the defendant’s second conviction 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 5
of 10

6 
demonstrates the need to impose a sentence of imprisonment that provides specific 
deterrence.   
C. 
General Deterrence and Public Protection 
The need for a significant sentence to protect the public and provide general 
deterrence is particularly pronounced within the context of white-collar crime.  See 
United States v. Sample, 901 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2018) (recognizing that 
“[d]efendants in white-collar crimes often calculate the financial gain and risk of loss, 
and white-collar crime therefore can be affected and reduced with serious punishment” 
(quoting United States v. Kuhlman, 711 F.3d 1321, 1329 (11th Cir. 2013))); United 
States v. Musgrave, 761 F.3d 602, 609 (6th Cir. 2014) (“Because economic and fraud-
based crimes are more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden crimes of passion or 
opportunity, these crimes are prime candidates for general deterrence.” (quoting United 
States v. Peppel, 707 F.3d 627, 637 (6th Cir. 2013))).   
Accordingly, the government believes that a sentence of 51 months’ 
imprisonment is needed to provide general deterrence and promote respect for the rule 
of law.   
D. 
A Sentence of 51 Months’ Imprisonment Is Needed to Avoid Unwarranted 
Sentencing Disparities 
The government’s requested sentence also avoids unwarranted sentencing 
disparities between white-collar sentences and sentences for other crimes, as well as 
unwanted sentencing disparities with other defendants who have been sentenced in this 
district for COVID-19-related fraud.  See United States v. Davis, 537 F.3d 611, 617 (6th 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 6
of 10

7 
Cir. 2008) (“One of the central reasons for creating the sentencing guidelines was to 
ensure stiffer penalties for white-collar crimes and to eliminate disparities between 
white-collar sentences and sentences for other crimes.”).  
In this district, sentences near or in the applicable guideline range routinely have 
been found appropriate for persons convicted of similar crimes.  See United States v. 
Harrington, 22-cr-00324-NYW (51-month sentence based on 57–71-month guideline 
range); United States v. Foreman, 21-cr-00165-RM (66-month sentence based on 63–
78-month guideline range); United States v. Lain, 21-CR-00175-WJM (32-month 
sentence based on 41–51-month guideline range where defendant had repaid millions 
in restitution prior to sentencing); United States v. Stonebarger, 21-CR-00392-RM (41-
month sentence based on 37–46-month guideline range); United States v. Zaghab, 21-
CR-00188-RBJ (30-month sentence based on 33–41-month guideline range). 
Considering the individualized circumstances of other cases in this district that 
also have involved pandemic relief fraud, the government believes a sentence of 51 
months’ imprisonment is appropriate and serves the objectives of sentencing. 
III. 
Restitution 
The Plea Agreement provides that the defendant has an obligation to pay 
restitution on the amount of her fraudulent EIDL and PPP loans (including the PPP 
loans that ultimately received loan forgiveness), plus interest accruing through the date 
of sentencing.  (ECF No. 13 at 15.)  The United States requests that the Court order 
restitution in the amount of $3,526,369.51—the amount necessary to make the victims 
of the defendant’s fraud scheme whole.   
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 7
of 10

8 
Of this amount, the government contends that $3,122,967.51 is owed to the SBA, 
which includes: (1) the $430,000 of EIDLs that were approved and funded by the SBA 
on behalf of Aggies Angels Care Providers, AACP, Mind Set Consulting, IGU 
Management, and NB Marketing; (2) the $20,000 of EIDGs that the defendant received 
on behalf of Aggies Angels Care Providers, AACP, and Mind Set Consulting; (3) 
$2,484,574.88 of PPP loans that received loan forgiveness or were repurchased by the 
SBA; (4) $99,095.87 of PPP processing fees that the SBA paid to third-party lenders for 
underwriting and servicing these PPP loans; and (5) $89,296.76 of interest accrued 
through the date of sentencing.2  
Additionally, $376,110 and $27,292 are owed to Itria Ventures LLC and 
Customers Bank, respectively, as three PPP loans underwritten by these lenders have 
not been repurchased or forgiven by the SBA.  Specifically, Itria Ventures LLC still 
maintains two PPP loans that the defendant obtained on behalf of Aggies Angels Care 
Providers: (1) PPP loan number 3460758509 in the amount of $327,732.50, and (2) 
PPP loan number 2686238504 in the amount of $48,377.50.  Likewise, Customers 
Bank still maintains PPP loan number 8253748408 in the amount of $27,292, which the 
defendant obtained on behalf of Aggies Angels Care Providers.   
2 As of the time of this filing, the SBA has not provided the government with certified 
documents regarding the interest that has accrued for the EIDL (loan number 
6894628103) that the defendant obtained on behalf of IGU Management in the amount 
of $111,500.  Accordingly, the government will not seek interest for that EIDL.   
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 8
of 10

9 
The Certified Statements of Account for the defendant’s loans are attached 
hereto as Exhibit 1.  A chart reflecting a breakdown of the government’s restitution 
calculations is attached hereto as Exhibit 2. 
IV.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that the
Court impose a sentence of 51 months’ imprisonment, followed by a three-year term of 
supervised release, restitution in the amount of $3,526,369.51, and a final entry of the 
order of forfeiture.   
Dated this 8th day of August, 2023. 
COLE FINEGAN 
United States Attorney 
By: s/ Nicole C. Cassidy 
Nicole C. Cassidy  
Rebecca S. Weber  
Assistant United States Attorneys 
1801 California Street, Suite 1600 
Denver, Colorado 80202 
Tel: (303) 454-0100 
Fax: (303) 454-0409 
Nicole.cassidy@usdoj.gov 
Rebecca.weber@usdoj.gov 
Attorneys for the Government 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 9
of 10

10 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on the 8th day of August, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING STATEMENT AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system 
which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of record in this case.  
 
s/ Nicole C. Cassidy    
Assistant United States Attorney  
United States Attorney’s Office 
 
 
 
Case No. 1:23-cr-00074-NYW     Document 24     filed 08/08/23     USDC Colorado     pg 10
of 10

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.223008.24.0.pdf

Size

220,686 bytes

SHA-256

1db2c33e65df83b48aabc200e04ae7718c16c2e1fa24f0cfad6c07eccaae6f00

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.223008.24.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)