Response to 23 Objections to Presentence Investigation Report — USA v. Bully (Jr) (Dkt. 24, S.D. Fla. No. 9:23-mj-08415, docketed in No. 9:23-cr-80141)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:23-cr-80141-DMM · Doc. 24 · 2023-11-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-CR-80141-Middlebrooks 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
EMMANUEL BULLY, JR., 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO OBJECTIONS TO PRESENTENCE REPORT 
 
The United States respectfully responds to defendant Emmanuel Bully, Jr.’s objections 
(D.E. 23) to the presentence report (D.E. 21). 
MB Tax Services 
Paragraph 17 of the presentence report states that, “[o]n April 29, 2020, the defendant 
submitted a PPP loan application on behalf of MB Tax Services Consultants, LLC . . . claiming that 
. . . it had a principal place of business in Delray Beach, Florida[,]” whereas in fact “MB Tax Services 
Consultants, LLC was not an active business with an office in Delray Beach.” The defendant objects 
that “MB Tax Consultants was reinstated with the Florida Division of Corporations on February 24, 
2020.” D.E. 23 ¶ 1. 
The defendant applied for three Paycheck Protection Program loans on behalf of MB Tax 
Consultants. He submitted these applications on May 6, 2020, January 19, 2021, and April 3, 2021. 
According to the records of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, MB Tax 
Consultants LLC was incorporated on May 9, 2018, failed to file an annual report in 2019, was 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023   Page 1 of 6

2 
 
reinstated on February 24, 2020, and remains active. Therefore, the defendant’s representation in 
his objection about the reinstatement of MB Tax Consultants is accurate. However, paragraph 17 
of the presentence report describes a different loan application, submitted on April 29, 2020. The 
name of the applicant, as written on that application, was “MB Tax Services Consultants[,]” (emphasis 
added) not MB Tax Consultants. According to the records of the Florida Department of State, 
Division of Corporations, no business with the name MB Tax Services Consultants has ever been 
registered in Florida. Therefore, the presentence report is correct. In fact, the defendant conceded 
that MB Tax Services Consultants was not an active business in the factual proffer that supported 
his plea agreement. D.E. 17 at 3. The language in the presentence report to which the defendant 
now objects is taken verbatim from the factual proffer. Therefore, the defendant’s objection should 
be denied. 
Furthermore, even assuming that the defendant intended to submit the application on 
behalf of MB Tax Consultants and made a mistake writing the name of his company, the application 
made material false statements regarding the business’s average monthly payroll. Again, the 
defendant conceded this material falsehood in the factual proffer and it is reported in the 
presentence report. D.E. 17 at 3; D.E. 21 ¶ 17. Therefore, the defendant’s objection regarding 
reinstatement of the corporation, even if well taken, would not affect his offense level. 
Intended Loss 
In the plea agreement, the defendant agreed to jointly recommend that the Court find that 
“the relevant loss amount resulting from the defendant's participation in the offense is 
$1,394,427 . . . .” D.E. 16 ¶ 8(b). Consistent with this concession, paragraph 25 of the presentence 
report stated that, “the defendant attempted to obtain $1,394,427 and succeeded in receiving 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023   Page 2 of 6

3 
 
$503,235 in CARES Act funds.” Based on a loss of more than $550,000, but not more than 
$1,500,000, paragraph 32 of the report applies a 14-level adjustment to the defendant’s offense level. 
The defendant objects to paragraph 25 of the report on the basis that “he did not intend, 
and could not have had such intention, to attempt to obtain ‘$1,394.27’ because the applications 
did not specify any amount sought or requested, and the Defendant did not know what if any funds 
were going to be provided in connection with any application . . . .” D.E. 23 ¶ 2. 
In the first place, the defendant has not objected to paragraph 32 of the report, which adjusts 
his offense level based on the loss in the case, nor could he do so in light of paragraph 8(b) of the 
plea agreement, quoted above. Accordingly, the Court does not have to rule on the defendant’s 
objection to paragraph 25. However, to the extent that the Court reaches the objection, it is 
meritless. 
When a business applied for either a Paycheck Protection Program loan or an Economic 
Injury Disaster Loan, the size of the loan for which the applicant qualified was calculated based on 
the information in the application. The defendant is correct that his loan applications did not state 
the size of the loans for which he would qualify if the loan was approved. Nevertheless, the defendant 
had notice of the scale of the loans for which he was applying. 
The defendant applied for 13 Paycheck Protection Program loans, of which 2 were funded. 
The loans are as follows: 
Application 
date 
Applicant business 
Loan amount 
Funded? 
4/29/2020 MB Tax Services Consultants 
$20,835 Yes 
5/6/2020 MB Tax Consultants LLC 
$62,500 Yes 
5/16/2020 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$15,000 No 
1/19/2021 MBJ Property Holdings LLC 
$65,000 No 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023   Page 3 of 6

4 
 
Application 
date 
Applicant business 
Loan amount 
Funded? 
1/19/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$94,250 No 
1/19/2021 MB Tax Consultants LLC 
$106,250 No 
1/27/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$20,832 No 
2/1/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$20,832 No 
2/12/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$20,832 No 
2/18/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$20,832 No 
2/20/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$20,832 No 
2/24/2021 EBJ Financial Group LLC 
$20,832 No 
4/3/2021 MB Tax Consultants LLC 
$18,000 No 
 
As the Court can see, the defendant received his two funded loans first, then applied for eleven 
more loans, which were declined. Similarly, the defendant applied for eight Economic Injury 
Disaster Loans, of which six were funded. Those loans are as follows: 
Application 
date 
Applicant business 
Loan amount 
Funded? 
5/22/2020 MB Tax Services LLC 
$36,900 Yes  
5/22/2020 MB Tax Services LLC 
$3,000 Yes  
6/18/2020 MB Tax Consultants LLC 
$8,000 Yes  
6/19/2020 MB Tax Consultants LLC 
$134,400 Yes  
7/17/2020 EMMANUEL B 
$47,800 Yes  
9/7/2021 EMMANUEL B 
$195,400 No  
9/18/2020 MBJ Property Holdings LLC 
$90,300 No  
9/27/2021 MB Tax Services LLC 
$189,800 Yes  
 
The pattern is similar: the defendant received five funded loans before he submitted the loan 
applications that were declined. Therefore, by the time the defendant submitted the loan 
applications that were declined, he had more than enough experience to understand the financial 
ramifications of his actions. Even if he did not know how to calculate exactly what loans he would 
qualify for, he had fair warning of the approximate values of the loans. Therefore, he is responsible 
for the intended loss to which he agreed to in the plea agreement. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023   Page 4 of 6

5 
 
Criminal History 
Paragraph 42 of the presentence report describes a conviction for driving under the influence 
for which the defendant has received one criminal history point. The defendant objects that the 
conviction “is wholly unrelated to” his instant COVID-loan fraud and that the conviction occurred 
almost ten years before the instant offense. The government does not believe the Court will have to 
resolve this objection, because the defendant has been assigned only one criminal history point total, 
placing him in criminal history category I. D.E. 21 ¶ 44. That is the same category applicable to 
defendants with no criminal history. Therefore, even if the Court assigned no points to the 
defendant’s prior conviction, his criminal history would not change. 
To the extent that the Court chooses to address the defendant’s objection further, the 
Probation Officer has properly included this conviction in the report, because the Probation 
Department is required to include “any prior criminal record” in a presentence report. 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(d)(2)(A)(i). Furthermore, the Probation Officer has properly assigned a criminal 
history point to this conviction, notwithstanding its age. If a defendant receives a sentence of less 
than 13 months’ incarceration, that sentence will receive at least one criminal history point if the 
sentence “was imposed within 10 years of the defendant’s commencement of the instant 
offense . . . .” U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e)(2). The defendant commenced the instant offense on April 29, 
2020, when he submitted his first fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loan application. D.E. 21 
¶ 17. He was sentenced for driving under the influence on September 4, 2011, less than nine years 
earlier. Therefore, the defendant’s objection regarding this conviction is meritless. 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023   Page 5 of 6

6 
 
Other Objections 
The government defers to the Probation Officer regarding defendant’s objections 4 (relating 
to his medical history); 5 and 6 (relating to his educational history); and 7 (relating to his vehicle 
ownership). 
* 
WHEREFORE, the government respectfully opposes the defendant’s objections to the 
presentence report in part. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: s/ Marc Osborne 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Court ID# A5500796 
500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 
Tel: (561) 209-1014 
marc.osborne@usdoj.gov 
Case 9:23-cr-80141-DMM   Document 24   Entered on FLSD Docket 11/27/2023   Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.24.0.pdf

Size

67,617 bytes

SHA-256

25e683cb849efc35835ff2f1282bd37356eff93f63319afe0dca89206ee099e5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.652569.24.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)