Exhibit A — USA v. Watson (Dkt. 52.1)

Summary

This defendant’s exhibit, filed July 21, 2022 as Document 52-1 in United States v. Edrica Watson, No. 2:21-cr-00107, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, is a seven-page letter dated 21 July 2022 from the Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida, to SUSPO Jodi Petersen of the United States Probation Office, responding to amended Paragraphs 24 and 28 of the Amended Final Presentence Report filed July 15, 2022. The letter argues that the government knew by December 21, 2021 of two PPP loans of $20,832, quotes a recording of Secret Service agents questioning Watson on December 15, 2021, and states that agents secured $45,000 from Watson's account before the initial appearance, $3,336 more than the $41,664 total of both loans.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 1 of 7 PageID 261
A. Fitzgerald Hall, Esq.
Federal Defender

Tampa Division

* Adam Allen, Esq.
*Howard Anderson, Esq.
Adeel Bashir, Esq.
Adrian Burden, Esq.
Jessica Casciola, Esq.
Laura Daines, Esq.
Jenny L Devine, Esq,
Paul Downing, Esq.

* Allison Guagliardo, Esq,
Nicole Hardin, Esq,
+Sylvia Irvin, Esq.
Percy King, Esq.

Adam Labonte, Esq.
Samuel Landes, Esq,
Sara Mieczkowski, Esq.
Adam Nate, Esq,
Kathleen Sweeney, Esq.
@Raudel Vitier, Esq.
Juliann Welch, Esq.

Orlando Division
Meghan Boyle, Esq.
4D, Todd Doss, Esq.
Melissa Fussell, Esq.
Katherine Howard, Esq.
Erin Hyde, Esq.
Conrad Kahn, Esq.
+Jenna Kelly, Esq.
*Steve Langs, Esq.
Joshua Lukman, Esq.
+Nicole Mouakar, Esq.
Karla M. Reyes, Esq,
Michael S, Ryan, Esq,
James Skuthan, Esq.
Michelle Yard, Esq,

Jacksonville Division

Lynn Bailey, Esq,

*Lisa Call, Esq,

+*Maurice C, Grant, II, Esq.
Waffa Hanania, Esq.

Ft. Myers Division
Yvette C, Gray, Esq.
Shehnoor Grewal, Esq.
James Lappan, Esq.
=+*Russ Rosenthal, Esq.
G, Ellis Summers, Jr., Esq.

Ocala Division
Christine Bird, Esq.
Douglas Stamm, Esq.

CHU Division
Raheela Ahmed, Esq.
Greg Brown, Esq.
+Marie Donnelly, Esq.
Brenna Egan, Esq,
Marta Jaszezolt, Esq.
Tennie Martin, Esq.
Jason Mooney, Esq
Julie Morley, Esq.
Leor Veleanu, Esq.

* First Assistant

= Second Assistant

* Senior Attorney

+ Division Supervisor
@Assistant Division Supervisor
# Senior Litigator

Tampa Division
Park Tower — Suite 2700
400 North Tampa Street

Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone:813-228-2715
Facsimile:813-228-2562

FEDERAL DEFENDER
Middle District of Florida

“Representing Those Who Cannot Represent Themselves”

Thursday, 21 July 2022

SUSPO Jodi Petersen
United States Probation Office — Fort Myers Division

BY PDF ATTACHMENT TO E-MAIL ONLY

Re: United States v. Edrica Watson, No. 2:21-cr-107-SPC-MRM
Amended Final Presentence Report filed July 15, 2022

Dear Officer Petersen:

Futility attends this letter as I do not anticipate you will file a Second Amended
Final Presentence Report. Along that line, I note the unusual posture of the
government’s motion to continue the business day before sentencing followed
by the government’s meeting with the Office of Probation, and the extra-
ordinary time constraints you faced in revising a final PSR more than a month
after the time for any party to object to that document had elapsed.

With the above acknowledged, this is obviously my first opportunity to advise
you that while the government’s “new discovery” is really not new, as it is now
accentuated in your Amended PSR, it does fortify Ms. Watson’s argument for
variance (PSR § 98 and Doc. 44) and it compels mention that all proceeds Ms.
Watson could have converted from two, uncharged PPP loans were re-captured
by federal agents after her arrest and before her initial appearance. Because the
amended Paragraphs 24 and 28 contain no mention of these matters and appear
in Part A of the Amended PSR,! I am obligated to respond to the Amended
PSR. West v. United States, 994 F.2d 510, 512, 513 (8" Cir. 1993); see also
United States v. Stevens, 851 F.2d 140, 145 (6" Cir. 1988) (relying on United
States v. Rone, 743 F.2d 1169, 1173 n. 2(7" Cir. 1984)).

1 As Part A of the presentence report is the Offense Conduct section, it is vital for Ms.
Watson to present her version of events to the Office of Probation. See Publication
107, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, pg. I-10 (March 2006). See generally
United States v. Casas, 425 F.3d 23, 58-59 (1" Cir. 2005) cert. denied 547 U.S. 1061
(2006) (time for parties to object to initial disclosure is “integral to the fair and orderly
process of imposing sentence”).

Orlando Division
Seaside Plaza — Suite 300
201 South Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32801
Telephone:407-648-6338
Facsimile:407-648-6095

Jacksonville Division
BB&T Tower ~ Suite 1240
200 West Forsyth Street
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Telephone:904-232-3039
Facsimile:904-232-1937

DEFENDANT’S
EXHIBIT

A

Capital Habeas Unit
Park Tower ~ Suite 2625
400 North Tampa Street

Tampa, Florida 33602
Telephone:813-228-2715
Facsimile;8]3-228-2562
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 2 of 7 PageID 262
Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida

I. Background

In the Addendum to the Amended PSR you confirm that the PSR was filed in this matter on June
7, 2022. The PSR followed the government’s May 16, 2022, objection letter and Ms. Watson’s
May 24, 2022, objection letter. See Addendum to Amended PSR at pages 29-32. After the June
7 release of the PSR, Ms. Watson filed a sentencing memorandum as Doc. 44. The government
did not file a sentencing memorandum. The original sentencing date was June 21.

In the Addendum to the Amended PSR, you confirm that on the business day before the June 21
sentencing hearing, the government filed a motion to continue that hearing and correctly report
the government premised its motion on “recently received additional information responsive to a
grand jury subpoena that had previously not been provided” and that “[t]he information related to
the defendant’s two additional PPP applications, only one of which was mentioned in the
presentence report.” Following disclosure of the new documentation, “the government met with
the probation office on June 29, 2002, and the final presentence report was amended to reflect
the additional information in paragraphs 24 and 28.” See Addendum to the Amended PSR.

Finally, in the opening paragraph to the Addendum to the Amended PSR, you write that the
Addendum “fairly states any objections made by counsel[.]” While I realize this is standardized
language appearing in every Addendum, | stress that it was not possible for defense counsel to
interpose any objection to the Amended PSR as the Amended PSR was presented to defense
counsel in final form as Doc. 50 on July 15.

IL. Discussion

Had defense counsel had an opportunity to object to the revisions to Paragraphs 24 and 28, or
had the government included defense counsel in the June 29, 2002, meeting concerning the new
documents/old information, please be advised defense counsel would have stated as follows:

A. No later than December 21, 2021, the government knew Ms. Watson received two
PPP loans in the amount of $20,832 because the government tendered discovery on
December 21, 2021, confirming there were two PPP loans for $20,832. Although
your initial PSR of May 10, 2022 (Doc. 40) did not mention there were two PPP
loans for $20,832, the government elected not to object to the non-appearance of the
second loan in the initial disclosure.?

Returning to your final PSR (Doc. 42), you established:

* “Watson was not aware if L.P. had partaken in PPP fraud prior to their conversations, but she
admitted that a deposit or $20,832 into her personal Chase Bank account was a result of a PPP
loan L.P. had previously obtained on her behalf.” (4 24 of final PSR).

« A footnote to the above entry reads: “Chase Bank records reflect on April 14, 2021, a $20,832
deposition was made into Watson personal Chase Bank account ending in 6297 from Itria
Ventures. (Footnote 1 of final PSR).

? See Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 32(f)(1).
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 3 of 7 PageID 263
Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida

« Agents from the United States Secret Services arrested Ms. Watson at her home on December
15, 2021. (4 23 of final PSR).

* Also on December 15, 2021, Ms. Watson tendered a $45,000 cashier’s check from her check-
ing account to the United States Secret Service. (11 of final PSR).

According to Doc. 19 in the matter at bar, the arrest warrant for Ms. Watson was issued on
December 1, 2021.

According to the government’s discovery, agents arrived at Ms. Watson’s house before business
hours on December 15, 2021.

According to Ms. Watson, after placing her under arrest and removing her from her residence,
agents drove Ms. Watson from her residence to a Chase Bank. While at that bank, agents
secured the $45,000 debit from Ms. Watson’s account. After federal agents secured $45,000
from Ms. Watson, agents transported her to federal court for her initial appearance.

According to the minutes from the initial appearance in this matter filed as Doc. 11, Ms.
Watson’s initial appearance began just before 4 p.m. on December 15, 2021.

According to an audio recording included in the government’s discovery, the following
conversation occurs among Ms. Watson and two Secret Service agents at her residence sometime
before 9 a.m. on December 15, 2021. As demonstrated in the recording, after agents established
that L.P. had coached and reassured Ms. Watson, and before agents began to question her about
the offense involving Unity Home Health Care, the following is a transcription beginning at 6:38
of the government’s recording and ending at 9:40 of that recording:

Agent #1: The money went into your account, correct? And how much was that, just, estimate?
Agent #2: How much was your loan for?

Ms. Watson: There was two PPP loans. For twenty.*? That was still in my account.’

Agent #1: That you independently — I mean I know it was $20,833 — did you, without Lester’ —
do — was that kind of like your self-entry into the game to see what the process was?

Ms. Watson: I guess.

* Here is the first mention of two loans for twenty thousand dollars.
* Here is the first mention that the money from the two PPP loans is still in Ms. Watson’s account.

5 Lester, as in Lester Parker ~ referred to as “L.P.” in the final PSR and in Ms. Watson’s sentencing
memorandum.
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 4 of 7 PageID 264
Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida

Agent #1: Did he? Allright. Rephrase. Did he ask you “just try it” -- like kind of thing -- you
go out and you do your own -- for how ever much money you think you can get,
which was $20,833.

Ms. Watson: I never did my own. I never did any paperwork. He did all the paperwork.°

Agent #1: He did, on your behalf, your paperwork to get you $20,000?

Ms. Watson: Yes.’

Agent #1: And he did that, or you knew about that occurring, twice.

Ms. Watson: Mm-mm (affirmative). ®

Agent #2: So what happened with that, did you go to his house to sign the documents, get forms,
what, we need the story.

Ms. Watson: We’d meet up, or he*d come here and sign the papers, or —
Agent #2: And then what was the cut? What was --like you were saying — like, for him to —

Ms. Watson: No — that was — nothing ‘cause it was still in the account.’ It was the other one —
the Unity -—

Agent #2: All right, so he didn’t get any cuts of the 20 Gs that was —
Ms. Watson: That was frozen already.

Agent #2: Oh.

Ms. Watson: That was still in my account.

Agent #1: You say it was frozen. I don’t —I mean I’ve seen your personal banking and I know
you got the money. Your personal banking was never frozen, suspended, not ‘til we
kind of got involved and we didn’t ask for it to be it was just the bank assuming they
were going to be at a loss and arisk. They do their own assessment when it comes to
that. But that initial funding of those smaller amounts — significantly smaller than the
larger one -- I think those funds were freely spent by yourself.

° Here is the first acknowledgement that L-P did the paperwork.
’ Here is the second acknowledgement that L.P. did the paperwork.

® Here is the third acknowledgment that L.P. did the paperwork and the second mention of two loans for
twenty thousand dollars.

° Here is the second mention that the money from the two PPP loans 1s still in Ms. Watson’s account.
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 5 of 7 PageID 265
Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida

Ms. Watson: But, I didn’t — I don’t know, I didn’t spend it all because I was trying to hold on to
— like, I was trying to hold on to try to get a house, I was trying to hold on to —

Agent #1 I get it. That’s a lot of money at one time. Again, you work a midnight shift and that
is not easy. I get it. And then having an opportunity present itself like that, however
the salesmen presented it, it worked. And you saw the benefit of receiving what ]
guess could be perceived as almost free money. It was sold that way. Gosh, after
(indecipherable) it was kind of like free money. /changing subjects] When it gets to
Unity, there had to be some work done.

In light of the above -- all of which was known before the initial PSR was released on May 10,
2022 -- (i) Secret Service agents knew about each of these $20,832 loans before December 15,
2021, (ii) Ms. Watson acknowledged each of these loans on December 15, 2021 and, (iii) under
arrest and in transport to federal Court for her initial appearance, agents stopped at a Chase
branch to have Ms. Watson surrender $3,336 more than the aggregate total of these two $20,832
loans. Put differently, while in custody but before being presented to a federal judge, the United
States sought and secured compensation for $3,336 more than the $41,664 aggregate of both
loans that Ms. Watson admitted she had received.

None of the information contained in the preceding paragraph appears in the Amended PSR.

B. Turning to Paragraph 28 of your Amended PSR, assume for the sake of argument the
assemblage of numbers appearing in this revised Paragraph actually indicated that
Ms. Watson consumed some or all of the combined $41,664 of PPP loans, or assume
for the same purpose that there was a tracing of the expenditures attributed to Ms.
Watson to fraudulent revenue.

Federal agents extracted $3,336 more than $41,664 from Ms. Watson’s bank account in between
the time they arrested her and the time they brought her to Court.

Isn’t it necessarily true that all of the $41,664 was still in her account on December 15, 2021 —
and then some? If not, then whose money did federal agents re-capture on December 15, 2021?

Had I had an opportunity to pose questions, one would have been: If Edrica Watson told agents
all of the money from the two PPP loans -- $41,464 -- was in her account and agents then
discovered that all of that money was indeed in her account, what is the purpose of the fusillade
of numbers in Paragraph 28?

C. Turning to Paragraph 24 of your Amended PSR, you provide detail not included in
your final PSR: (i) Ms. Watson initialed the false documents; (11) Ms. Watson signed
the false documents; (iii) the documents falsely reported that Ms. Watson was not
only a cosmetologist but also had a cosmetology business and that (iv) Ms. Watson
applied for loan forgiveness for each of these loans.

While your final PSR did not provide the above detail as to one of the PPP loans, I agree that all
you report in Paragraph 24 is correct.
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 6 of 7 PageID 266
Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida

Insofar as Paragraph 98 in all versions of the PSR states that “the defendant had a relationship
with L.P. and he was influential to her[,]” and Paragraph 23 of all versions of the PSR states that
Ms, Watson “advised that L.P. provided the documentation on her behalf],]” and Paragraph 25 of
all versions of the PSR states that L.P. had Ms. Watson’s personal information and that he “used
her information to fill out the PPP loan application, and then he provided her with the application
to digitally initial sign and submit[.]” had I had an opportunity to contribute prior to the release
of the Amended PSR, I would have asked you to include mention in Paragraph 24 that Ms.
Watson (1) told agents there were two PPP loans, (ii) told agents that all of the money was still in
her account, (iii) stated “I never did my own. I never did any paperwork. He [L.P.] did all the
paperwork[.]” and, (iv) told agents she would sign the documents L.P. created when they would
meet up or he would come to her house.

The above is not only consistent with the mitigation presented in Ms. Watson’s sentencing
memorandum, but it is also consistent with Paragraph 98 of every version of the PSR. Because
you did not benefit from the transcription of the December 15, 2021, interview of Ms. Watson
that appears on pages 2 through 4 of this letter, I understand why the information material to
sentencing gleaned from it does not appear in your Amended PSR. But because Part A is the
critical section of the PSR where a premium is placed not only on the accuracy of the
information contained in Part A, but on the style in which it is presented,!° if I have been
provided an opportunity to provide you this transcription, | would have. Sadly, I was not! and,
as such, none of this information could be included in your Amended PSR.

D. In Part 1(B) of Ms, Watson’s sentencing memorandum at Doc. 44, I highlight Ms.
Watson’s immediate cooperation with authorities, the government’s overture for Ms.
Watson to cooperate further, her willingness to do so and the government’s decision
not to debrief.

The highlighting of new documents/old information in the amended PSR further supports Ms.
Watson’s non-5K argument: she told agents there were two PPP loans, she told agents that L.P.
created the paperwork for those loans, she told them all proceeds from those loan would still be
in her account and she then provided the agents with $3,336 more than the aggregate value of

© Publication 107, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, pg. I-10 (March 2006).

41 “The primary purpose of Rule 32 is to provide for resolution of disputed material facts and guideline
applications before the sentencing hearing.” Publication 107, Office of Probation and Pretrial Services,
IV-1 (March 2006). (emphasis added). According to the Advisory Committee Note to the 1994
Amendments to Rule 32, the rationale for an objection period following initial disclosure not provided to
the sentencing judge is “to provide some additional time to the parties and the probation officer to attempt
to resolve objections to the report.” Indeed, that which remains in the final PSR will not only be seen by
the sentencing judge but will also be deemed undisputed unless a party renews his objection at
sentencing. See Rule 32(i)(3)(A); see also United States v. Davis, 587 F.3d 1300, 1304 (11" Cir. 2009).
Necessarily then, only an interposed objection can be noted in the Addendum, responded to by the Office
of Probation, and renewed at the sentencing hearing.
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 52-1     Filed 07/21/22     Page 7 of 7 PageID 267
Federal Defender, Middle District of Florida

both loans. And so, notwithstanding an agent’s acknowledgment that the $41,664 was “kind of
like free money,” all of that free money was nonetheless immediately re-captured by that same
agent.

Obviously, none of this information could be included in the Amended PSR.

Il. Remedy?

Returning to the second paragraph of this letter, | am duty-bound to present the information
contained herein to you even though I understand the extraordinary posture of this presentence
investigation constrains a Second Amended Final Presentence Report. While no sentencing
memorandum carries the weight of a presentence report,!” I shall file a second sentencing
memorandum in this matter apprising the Court of the additional and corroborative mitigating
factors that further support Ms. Watson’s original sentencing memorandum filed as Doc. 44 that
are supported by the Amended PSR at Doc. 50 but are not contained in that crucial document.

Jameés Lefppan

cc: CAUSA Jesus Casas

” Whereas the presentence report likely becomes the Court’s findings of fact at sentencing, see Fed. R.
Crim. Pro, 32(i)(3)(A), sentencing memoranda is never more than advocacy. See, e.g., United States v.
Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 56 (1" Cir. 2013). Consequently, no sentencing memorandum shall ever bear the
imprimatur of a presentence report nor shall it be transmitted to -- nor relied upon by — prison officials or
probation officers supervising the defendant. See Monograph 107 at §§ 220(a)(1), 220(a)(3), 430(b) &
430(d); Probation & Pretrial Services, Part E: Post-Conviction Supervision at § 340(b).


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.396888.52.1.pdf

Size

905,712 bytes

SHA-256

11348938a553e3f7db2092d27f68e581e6d05c0635b0a3feb965148988eeb2b0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.396888.52.1.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)