Court filing

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by Jordan Nichols — USA v. Sanders et al (Dkt. 301)

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington
Filed	2025-10-05

U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington · No. 4:24-cr-00029-BP · Doc. 301 · 2025-10-05 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

Defendant Jordan Nichols's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Sanders et al., No. 4:24-cr-00029-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri, filed October 5, 2025 as Document 301 by defense counsel John Anthony Picerno. It asks the court for a sentence of probation under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), stating that on October 29, 2024 he pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to Count 1, conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349. The memorandum recounts the offense conduct as a PPP loan application listing monthly payroll of $8,333 and a $20,832 deposit, and reports restitution of $20,832 and a $100 special assessment. It states a Total Offense Level of 9 in Criminal History III with an advisory range of 8-14 months, then argues each § 3553(a) factor, including employment history and deterrence, supports probation. The memorandum is nine pages.

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

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 24-00029-11-CR-W-BP
)
JORAN NICHOLS
)
)
Defendant.
)

DEFENDANT JORDAN NICHOL’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

COMES NOW the defendant, Jordan Nichols, by and through the
undersigned counsel, and hereby respectfully request this Honorable Court to
impose a sentence of probation, which is sufficient but not greater than necessary to
serve the objectives of sentencing, as reflected in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support of
his motion for a downward variance the Defendant respectfully states as follows:
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 29, 2024, Jordan Nichols, appeared before Chief U.S. District Beth
Phillips and entered a plea of guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to Count 1 of the
Indictment, which charged that, beginning no later than on or about February 2021
and continuing until at least July 2022, he conspired to commit wire fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.
In exchange for his plea of guilt, the Government agreed to dismiss Count 12
of the Indictment at sentencing, and not to seek an upward departure or a sentence
outside of the guidelines range. Mr. Nichols is free to seek a downward departure or
sentence outside of the guideline range. He must pay restitution in the amount of
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 1 of 9

$20,832 and a $100 special assessment prior to sentencing.

OFFENSE CONDUCT

Mr. Nichols provided personal identification information to Daisha Sanders.
Thereafter Daisha Sanders submitted an online application for a COVID-19 relief PPP
loan for him. The loan application listed average monthly payroll of $8,333 and a Schedule
C which listed Gross receipts of $144,080 and net income of $99,982. Mr. Nichols did not
have a business during that time with gross income and net income in those amounts. His
loan application provided the following as the bank account associated with his business:
Community America Credit Union (CACU). The bank account was a personal checking
account held by him. As a result, his personal account at CACU received a wire deposit
from Prestamos in the amount of $20,832. He made a $5145.30 Paypal transfer to Joel
Wright, who transferred 5,000 to Daisha Sanders. Mr. Nichols spent the remaining loan
proceeds on personal expenses, not associated with any business.1
TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL

There are no unresolved issues with regard to the PSR. Mr. Nichols Total
Offense

Level is 9 within Criminal History III with a resulting advisory guideline range
of 8-14
months.2
STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING SENTENCE

As the Supreme Court established in United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220
(2005), Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007), and Kimbrough v. United States,

1 Plea Agreement, ¶3, pg. 2.
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 2 of 9

552 U.S. 85 (2007), a sentencing court has broad discretion to consider nearly every
aspect of a particular case (and a particular defendant) in fashioning an appropriate
sentence. “It has been uniform and constant in the federal judicial tradition for the
sentencing judge to consider every convicted person as an individual and every case
as a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes
magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 52 (citing Koon
v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996)). It is axiomatic that Booker rendered the
sentencing guidelines advisory rather than mandatory. Booker, 543 U.S. at 264. The
Kimbrough Court stressed that the sentencing judge is not bound by the Guidelines
or Guidelines Policy Statements; rather, he may make his own policy judgments,
even if those judgments are different than those provided for in the guidelines.
Kimbrough, 552 U.S. at 101. See also, Spears v. United States, 555
U.S. 261, 264-265 (2009).

The primary federal statutes governing sentencing in the federal district

courts are 18U.S.C. § 3553(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 3661. Section 3553(a) contains an
introductory portion and seven subsections. The introductory portion directs the
sentencing court, in determining a particular sentence, to consider: (1) the nature and
circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant; (2) the
need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote
respect for the law, to provide just punishment for the offense, to afford adequate
deterrence to criminal conduct, to protect the public from future crimes of the
defendant, and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training,

2 PSIR ¶83, pg 20.
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 3 of 9

medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner; (3) the kinds
of sentences available; (4) the guidelines; (5) guidelines policy statements; (6) the need
to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and (7) the need to provide restitution. The
introductory portion of § 3553(a) also directs the sentencing court to “impose a sentence
sufficient but not greater than necessary” to comply with the purposes of subsection (2).
Indeed, this is “the overarching goal in federal sentencing.” Freeman v. United States,
131 S.Ct. 2685, 2692 (2011).
Of crucial importance, 18 U.S.C. § 3661 makes it clear that “no limitation
shall be placed on the information concerning the background, character, and
conduct of a person convicted of an offense which a court of the United States may
receive and consider for the purpose of imposing an appropriate sentence.” Put
simply, in addition to the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, the court may receive and
consider any information concerning the defendant’s background, character, and
conduct in imposing a sentence. The Supreme Court highlighted the centrality of
this concept: “In particular, we have emphasized that ‘[h]ighly relevant—if not
essential—to [the] selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the
fullest information possible concerning the defendant's life and characteristics.’
Permitting sentencing courts to consider the widest possible breadth of information
about a defendant ‘ensures that the punishment will suit not merely the offense but
the individual defendant.’” Pepper v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 1229, 1240 (2011)
(citations omitted).

Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 4 of 9

APPLICATION OF 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) FACTORS

18 USC 3553(a)(1):

Nature and Circumstances of the Offense

The Offense Conduct section of this memorandum has described Mr.
Nichols illegal conduct. He has pled guilty and acknowledged his conduct and
the damage it caused, which has resulted in restitution owed in the amount of
$20,832.

History and Characteristics of the Defendant

Jordan Nichols is thirty-two (32) years old and father of five (5) young children under
the age of twelve (12).3 He has been consistently employes since working as a shipping leader
for KC Sausage Company from 2012 – 2016 and as a landscaper from 2016-2022, prior to
landing a job as a forklift operator in April of 2023. For the past year and a half, he has been
employed at Pure Fishing Distribution Center in Kansas City, Missouri. His current
wages are $21.50 per hour.

Mr. Nichols received four criminal history points as follows: misdemeanor
possession of marijuana (1) in 2014 at age 20, felony fleeing from law enforcement (1)
in 2014 at age 21, and (2) misdemeanors driving under the influence convictions (1
point each) in 2021 at the age of 27.4

Mr. Nichols has successfully completed numerous court probations. He is

3 PSIR, ¶64, pg. 17.
4 PSIR ¶ 40, 41, 44, 45, pgs. 11-13.
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 5 of 9

capable of conforming to any conditions set by the Court if it imposes a sentence

of probation.

18 USC ' 3553(a)(2): The Need for the Sentence Imposed –

(A) To Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, to Promote Respect for
the Law,

and to Provide Just Punishment for the Offense

(B) To Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct

Both of the concepts set out in (A) and (B) can be achieved without
imposition of a custody sentence. A review of the criminological literature
reveals that to the extent that criminal sanctions do have a general deterrent
effect, the certainty (how certain an offender will be deterred) of punishment has
a far greater deterrent effect than the severity of the sanction. Any sentence of
incarceration, however short, has a significant deterrent effect upon a white-
collar offender. Title 18 USC 3553(a)(2)(B)'s directive that the sentence imposed
afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct does not require a lengthy term
of imprisonment. The fact that Mr. Nichols was investigated, prosecuted, and
pled guilty for his actions should be sufficient to deter potential similarly
situated white collar offenders.
18 USC § 3553(a)(3): The Kinds of Sentences Available

18 U.S.C. '3553(a)(3) requires the Court to consider "the kinds of sentences
available" in a given case. Here, the Court has available to it a sentence of
probation as a form of punishment other than imprisonment. Indeed, employing
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 6 of 9

a sentence of probation will allow the Court to both punish Mr. Nichols
sufficiently while, at the same time, allowing him the opportunity to continue
rebuilding his life and restoring trust of his family and friends.
18 USC § 3553(4), (5): The Sentencing Guidelines Provisions

This is a case which warrants a sentence of probation. Mr. Nichols’
conviction alone serves as a general and specific deterrent. There is no credible
evidence that he is a candidate for recidivism. While he does have numerous
misdemeanor convictions, he has only one prior felony conviction and has never
been convicted of a crime of violence. There are substantial reasons as to how a
probationary sentence satisfies the concerns of 18 U.S.C. 3553 and the holding
in Booker.

Mr. Nichols has pled guilty, accepted responsibility, cooperated, and
avoided a trial. And, during the period of time Mr. Nichols has been released
pending sentencing, he has complied with every directive of the Court and has
conducted himself appropriately and responsibly. A sentence of probation
consistent with the suggestions herein would serve all of the goals of
punishment established by the Sentencing Reform Act.
18 USC § 3553(7): The Need to Provide Restitution.

The PSIR indicates restitution is owed and outstanding in the amount of
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 7 of 9

$20,832.5 A probationary sentence will permit Mr. Nichols to continue his full-
time employment and make meaningful restitution payments.
CONCLUSION

A probationary sentence would satisfy this sentencing mandate. It is the
goal of sentencing to prevent unnecessary incarceration and to limit prison
sentences to those individuals who pose the greatest risk to society. As
renowned criminologist Norval Morris has consistently argued, and reflective of
the recent Supreme Court decisions, when determining punishment, "the least
restrictive (punitive) sentence necessary to achieve defined social purposes
should be imposed.”6 A probationary sentence is consistent with Galls
instruction that district courts should consider every convicted person as an
individual and every case as a unique study in the human failings that
sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to
ensue. 7. For the reasons set forth above, the defendant seeks a probationary
sentence along with whatever special conditions of probation this Court deems
necessary and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of this case.

Respectfully submitted,

5 PSIR ¶1, pg. 3.
6 In The Future of Imprisonment, Norval Morris (1974, pg. 59).
7 Gall, 128 S.Ct at 598.
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 8 of 9

/s/ John Anthony Picerno__________
John Anthony Picerno, MBN: 41861

2526 Holmes Street

Kansas City, Missouri 64108

Telephone: 816-471-3330

Facsimile:
816-396-5680

Mobile:
816-694-7726

Email:
JPLaw@JohnPicerno.com

ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

In accordance with Rule 49(a), (b) and (d), fed. R. Crim. P., and Rule 5(b), Fed. R.
Civ. P., it is hereby CERTIFIED that this Entry of Appearance was electronically filed
on this 5th day of October 2025, and that a copy was sent to all concerned parties,
through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System.

/s/ John Anthony Picerno
John Anthony Picerno

Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 301 Filed 10/05/25 Page 9 of 9

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.301.0.pdf
Size: 214,147 bytes
SHA-256: a2abb842680a0c7dae03af559dbe4f2acebebeb36141c26bd4baaf69b2da7a9c
Our copy: gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.301.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

SENTENCING MEMORANDUM by Jordan Nichols — USA v. Sanders et al (Dkt. 301)

Record facts

Summary

Full text

File and source

Related records