Court filing
Sentencing Memorandum by USA as to Roxanne Nazir — USA v. Sanders et al. (Dkt. 216)
Filed January 31, 2025 in Sanders; one of 83 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-01-31 |
U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington · No. 4:24-cr-00029-BP · Doc. 216 · 2025-01-31 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROXANNE NAZIR, Defendant. Case No. 24-00029-05-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 and mandatory restitution of $20,830. The government recommends a sentence of probation. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND On October 3, 2024, Defendant Roxanne Nazir entered a plea of guilty to Count 6 of the indictment, wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, before Chief U.S. District Judge Phillips. (PSR ¶ 1.) The maximum possible penalty for wire fraud is 20 years’ imprisonment. The defendant’s offense conduct is outlined in paragraphs 4 through 9, and 14 of the PSR. The defendant was part of a group of individuals organized by Daisha Sanders to submit fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans. Ms. Nazir, aided by Daisha Sanders, submitted an application which claimed she was the sole proprietor of a business that had gross revenues of $144,080 and net income 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 prior to the pandemic. On May 13, 2021, Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 216 Filed 01/31/25 Page 1 of 4 2 the defendant received a $20,830 PPP loan. On May 17, 2021, the defendant made a $5,000 transfer to Daisha Sanders. The defendant spent the remaining proceeds on personal expenses. 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 $20,830 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 zero criminal history points and several previous arrests. The defendant has been employed at the same job since 2017. 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 216 Filed 01/31/25 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 a reasonable sentence would be probation. Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 216 Filed 01/31/25 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 January 31, 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 216 Filed 01/31/25 Page 4 of 4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.216.0.pdf
- Size
- 148,124 bytes
- SHA-256
- 78ec4a3c4fb806dace190fa2bad262b5528c571494c85ffad8a0607d580b9cd4
- Original
- PACER (login required)