Sentencing Memorandum by USA as to Roxanne Nazir — USA v. Sanders et al. (Dkt. 216)

Summary

The Government's Sentencing Memorandum for Roxanne Nazir, Case No. 24-00029-05-CR-W-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed January 31, 2025 as Document 216. It states that the presentence report calculated a range of 0 to 6 months and mandatory restitution of $20,830, and the government recommends probation. The memorandum states that on October 3, 2024 the defendant pleaded guilty to Count 6, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and that an application aided by Daisha Sanders claimed a sole proprietorship with gross revenues of $144,080 in 2019. It states that the defendant received a $20,830 PPP loan on May 13, 2021 and transferred $5,000 to Sanders on May 17, 2021, with an offense level of 7 and Criminal History Category I. It is signed /s/ Paul S. Becker, Assistant United States Attorney.

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. 
 
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

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.216.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)