Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Luana McNurlin (W.D. Mo.)

Summary

The Government's Sentencing Memorandum in United States of America v. Luana McNurlin, Case No. 24-00029-10-CR-W-BP, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed October 29, 2024 as Document 163. It states that the defendant pled guilty on June 6, 2024 to Count One, conspiracy to commit wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, and that the presentence report calculated a range of 0 to 6 months and mandatory restitution of $20,832. The government states that Daisha Sanders applied on the defendant's behalf for a PPP loan claiming a business with a gross income of $144,080, that the defendant received $20,832 on July 6, 2021, and that the loan was forgiven on October 5, 2021. The government recommends a sentence of probation; the memorandum is signed /s/ Paul S. Becker.

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI 
WESTERN DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
v. 
 
LUANA McNURLIN, 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
 
 
Case No.  24-00029-10-CR-W-BP 
 
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its sentencing 
memorandum in this case. The presentence report calculated the sentencing range from 0 to 6 
months, a fine ranging from $1,000 to $9,500, and mandatory restitution of $20,832. The 
government recommends a sentence of probation. 
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 
On June 6, 2024, Defendant  Luana McNurlin pled guilty to Count One of the 
indictment, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. (PSR ¶ 1.) The 
maximum possible penalty for conspiracy to commit wire fraud is 20 years’ imprisonment and 
a fine of $250,000. The defendant’s offense conduct is outlined in paragraphs 4 through 9, and 19 
of the PSR. 
The defendant was part of a group of individuals organized by her acquaintance, 
Daisha Sanders, to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Daisha Sanders, 
on behalf of Ms. McNurlin, applied for the PPP loan which claimed Ms. McNurlin was the sole 
proprietor of a business that had a gross income of $144,080 and a net profit of $99,982 in 2019. 
In fact, the defendant did not have such a business, and it did not have any revenues in the year 
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP     Document 163     Filed 10/29/24     Page 1 of 4

2 
prior to the pandemic. On July 6, 2021, the defendant received a $20,832 PPP loan. On 
September 28, 2021, a PPP loan forgiveness application was filed with the Small Business 
Association claiming that all of the original loan was spent on payroll cost. The loan forgiveness 
application was approved, and the PPP loan was forgiven on October 5, 2021. 
DISCUSSION 
I. 
Sentencing Analysis 
There are no outstanding objections to the presentence report and, therefore, the offense 
level would be 7, Criminal History Category I, resulting in a guideline range of 0 to 6 months. As 
this Court is aware, 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sets forth the factors to be considered in determining an 
appropriate sentence. In evaluating the appropriate sentence for this defendant, the United 
States notes the following: 
Nature of the offense: 
The defendant falsely applied for and received a $20,832 pandemic relief loan. These funds 
were intended to assist businesses that were impacted by the pandemic. While this amount is small 
compared to other pandemic relief fraud, the defendant should have been aware that this scheme 
was unlawful. 
The history and characteristics of the defendant: 
The defendant has no criminal history points and is self-employed as the owner/operator 
of LuLu’s Hair Boutique. 
Seriousness of the Offense, Deterrence, Protection, and Rehabilitation: 
This was a serious offense and there is a need to deter the defendant and others from 
fraudulently taking advantage of emergency relief funds. 
 
 
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP     Document 163     Filed 10/29/24     Page 2 of 4

3 
Sentencing: 
As noted by the Court in United States v. Anderson, 664 F.3d 758, 764-765 (8th Cir. 2012), 
the analysis for reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence is well-settled: 
We review substantive reasonableness for an abuse of discretion, “‘tak[ing] 
into account the totality of the circumstances, including the extent of any 
variance from the Guidelines range.’” United States v. Feemster, 572 F.3d 
455, 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) (quoting Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 
38, 51, 128 S. Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007)). If a sentence is outside of 
the Guidelines range, “we ‘may consider the extent of the deviation, but 
must give due deference to the district court’s decision that the § 3553(a) 
factors, on a whole, justify the extent of the variance.’” Id. at 461–62 
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. 586) “Just because we ‘might 
reasonably have concluded that a different sentence was appropriate is 
insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.’” Id. at 462 
(quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51, 128 S. Ct. 586). “‘[I]t will be the unusual 
case when we reverse a district court sentence ... as substantively 
unreasonable.’” Id at 464 (quoting United States v. Gardellini, 545 F.3d 
1089, 1090 (D.C. Cir. 2008)). 
 
As noted by Judge Colloton in his concurrence in United States v. Burman, 666 F.3d 
1113, 1120 (8th Cir. 2012) citing, Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 50-51, 128 S. Ct. 586 
(2007), the “proper measure of reasonableness under § 3553(a) is not whether the variance from 
an advisory guideline range is reasonable, but whether the ultimate sentence is reasonable in light 
of the § 3553(a) factors taken as a whole.” 
The issue presented to the Court then is what sentence is reasonable given the need to deter 
others who would engage in such illegal misappropriation of government emergency monies. 
The United States suggests that in this case a reasonable sentence would be probation. 
 
 
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP     Document 163     Filed 10/29/24     Page 3 of 4

4 
A sentence within the guideline range would deter the defendant and send a message to 
others that such fraud schemes are unlawful and will be dealt with seriously by the United States 
District Court. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Teresa A. Moore 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
/s/ Paul S. Becker 
 
Paul S. Becker 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Charles Evans Whittaker Courthouse 
400 E. 9th Street, Suite 5510 
Kansas City, Missouri 64106 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was delivered on October 29, 
2024, to the Electronic Case Filing (CM-ECF) system of the United States District Court for the 
Western District of Missouri for electronic delivery to all counsel of record. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Paul S. Becker 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul S. Becker 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP     Document 163     Filed 10/29/24     Page 4 of 4

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.163.0.pdf

Size

147,273 bytes

SHA-256

22c3d9beb3446551ca457b77cdf618d70f9f4b9715d175fb761be3cff5abdbb4

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.163.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)