Plea Agreement and Sentencing Stipulations — United States v. Solomon (Dkt. 28, D. Minn.)

Summary

A plea agreement and sentencing stipulations in United States v. Tequisha Solomon, No. 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, filed December 13, 2022 as Doc. 28. It binds only the defendant and the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Minnesota. The defendant agrees to plead guilty to Count Two of the Indictment, which charges wire fraud. In the factual basis she admits that, while living in Minnesota and Nevada, she caused fraudulent pandemic unemployment claims to be submitted to California's Employment Development Department, which paid her at least $37,000 in 2020 and 2021. She also admits helping others obtain pandemic-related funds for a fee of as much as $2,000. The agreement is signed for U.S. Attorney Andrew M. Luger by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew S. Ebert.

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

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 ( Filed 12/13/22 Page 1 of 13
                                             \
                                              |

                                             ‘

                     UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                         DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
                       Criminal No. 22-1381 (ECT/DTS)

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                   Plaintiff,                 PLEA AGREEMENT AND
                                              SENTENCING STIPULATIONS

       Vv.

 TEQUISHA SOLOMON,

                  Defendant.

      The United States of America and defendant TEQUISHA SOLOMON

(hereinafter referred to as the “defendant”) agree to resolve this case on the terms

and conditions that follow. This plea agreement binds only the defendant and the

United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota (hereinafter “the United

States” or “the Government”). This agreement does not bind any other United States

Attorney’s Office or any other federal or state agency.

      1.    Charges in this Case. By this Agreement, defendant agrees to plead

guilty to Count Two of the Indictment, which charges the defendant with wire fraud,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1848. The defendant has read the charges against her

contained in the Indictment, and those charges have been fully explained to her by

her attorney. The defendant fully understands the nature and elements of the crime

with which she has been charged. At the time of sentencing, the government agrees

to move to dismiss the remaining counts of the Indictment.

CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 2 of 13

2. Factual Basis. The defendant is pleading guilty because she is in fact
guilty of Count Two of the Indictment. In pleading guilty, the defendant admits the
following facts and that those facts establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and
constitute relevant conduct pursuant to the United States Sentencing Guidelines:

Federal Pandemic Assistance Programs

The federal and state unemployment system for providing federal benefits to
eligible unemployed American workers (“UI”) has historically been administered
through the states’ respective workforce agencies, such as California’s Employment
Development Department (“EDD”) and Minnesota’s Department of Employment and
Economic Development (“DEED”). Beginning in or about March 2020 and continuing
through in or about September 2021, the federal government provided significant
supplemental and expanded UI to offset the negative impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic on the American workforce. As part of the application process, UI
claimants were required to provide true and correct information, and to certify that
their eligibility to receive UI from a certain state, and to certify that they had not
~ previously applied for UI from a different state. The state agencies relied upon the
information provided by UI claimants in determining eligibility for UI benefits.

An additional source of funding authorized by federal law in 2020 and 2021 to
combat the negative economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic was the
authorization of loans to small businesses referred to as the Paycheck Protection
Program (“PPP”) and the Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. To obtain

such loans, the small business applicant was required to certify, among other things,


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 3 of 13

average monthly payroll expenses, which was used to calculate the amount of money
the small business was eligible to receive. In addition, businesses applying for a loan
were required to provide documentation, such as a tax return, showing their payroll
expenses. The loan proceeds were required to be used on certain permissible business
expenses, including payroll costs, mortgage interest, rent, and utilities.

Defendani’s Scheme to Defraud Federal
Pandemic Assistance Programs

From at least June 2020 through at least in or around January 2022, in the
District of Minnesota, and elsewhere, the defendant executed a scheme to
fraudulently obtain pandemic assistance money from various states, such as
California’s EDD and Minnesota’s DEED, among others, as well as from the United
States, that defendant knew that she, and others, were not entitled to receive.

As-part of the fraud scheme, defendant claimed seeking UI benefits from states
where she had no lawful basis to receive them. For example, while defendant resided
in Minnesota and Nevada, she caused the fraudulent submission of claims to
California’s EDD, in which she falsely claimed, among other things, that she worked
and resided in Los Angeles, California. As a result, California’s EDD paid defendant
at least $37,000 in periodic UI payments between approximately in 2020 and 2021,
during which time she actually resided in either Minnesota or Nevada.

As an additional part of her scheme, the defendant unlawfully “double-dipped”
by trying to obtain UI benefits from multiple states simultaneously. For instance, in
or about October 2020, the defendant fraudulently claimed UI benefits from the

Illinois Department of Employment Security at which time she was actually residing


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 4 of 13

in Minnesota and was already fraudulently receiving UI benefits from California’s
EDD. In addition, in or about March 2021, defendant fraudulently applied for UI
from Minnesota’s DEED, and concealed her fraudulent receipt of UI benefits from
California and Illinois.

It was further part of defendant’s scheme that she also fraudulently applied
for EIDL and PPP small business loans that were based, among other falsehoods,
upon fake payroll information and bogus tax records to deceive lenders.

In addition to fraudulently obtaining pandemic-related benefits for herself,
defendant also assisted others to obtain pandemic-related funds in exchange for a fee,
which varied but at times was as much as $2,000, which she either knew were
fraudulent when submitted or were submitted without to regard to the truthfulness
of the application. As such, defendant submitted over 200 false and fraudulent
applications for UI benefits on behalf of others.

Defendant was aware that many of the) UI applications and loan applications
she submitted in the names of other claimants were false regarding the claimants’
employment history and availability to work. For example, as alleged in Count Two
of the Indictment, on or about July 16, 2020, defendant caused the interstate
electronic submission from Minnesota of a fraudulent claim for UI benefits to
California’s EDD, for an inmate who was actually incarcerated at a Minnesota prison
at that time and thus ineligible to receive UI.

In total, records show that Ms. Solomon applied for approximately $110,000 in

fraudulent benefits for herself and received well over $100,000 for assisting others’


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 5 of 13

fraudulent claims. The majority of Ms. Solomon’s conduct involved her fraudulent
submissions for others. In all, defendant applied fraudulently for $7,149,032 in
pandemic-related funds, and defendant caused the United States and multiple state
agencies to pay out at least $4,708,191 in the form of fraudulent UI benefits and small
business loan proceeds.

3. Waiver of Pretrial Motions. The defendant understands and agrees
that the defendant has certain rights to file pre-trial motions in this case. As part of
this plea agreement, and based upon the concessions of the United States within this
plea agreement, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and voluntarily gives up the
right to have any pending motions resolved and to file any additional pre-trial
motions in this case. The defendant agrees that, by pleading guilty, she is
withdrawing any motions previously filed.

4, Waiver of Constitutional Trial Rights. The defendant understands
that she has the right to go to trial. At trial, the defendant would be presumed
innocent, have the right to trial by jury or, with the consent of the United States and
of the Court, to trial by the Court, the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to subpoena witnesses to
testify for the defense, the right to testify and present evidence, and the right to be
protected from compelled self-incrimination. The defendant understands that she
has the right to an attorney at every stage of these proceedings and, if necessary, one
will be appointed to represent her. The defendant understands that she has the right

to persist in a plea of not guilty and, if she does so, she would have the right to a


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 6 of 13

public and speedy trial. By pleading guilty, the defendant knowingly, willingly, and
voluntarily waives each of these trial rights, except the right to counsel. The
defendant understands that a guilty plea is a complete and final admission of guilt
and, if the Court accepts the guilty plea, the Court will adjudge the defendant guilty
without a trial.

5. Additional Consequences. The defendant understands that as a
result of her conviction, she could experience additional consequences, such as the
loss of the right to carry firearms, the loss of certain federal benefits, the right to vote,
and the right to hold public office.

6. Statutory Penalties. The defendant understands that Count Two of
the Indictment (wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1348) is a felony offense that

carries the following maximum statutory penalties:

a 20 years in prison;

b. supervised release term of 3 years;

Cc. fine of $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense,
whichever is greater;

d. mandatory special assessment of $100; and

e. payment of mandatory restitution in an amount to be determined

by the Court.

7. Guidelines Calculations. The parties acknowledge that the
defendant will be sentenced in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3551, et seg. Nothing in
this plea agreement should be construed to limit the parties from presenting any and
all relevant evidence to the Court at sentencing. The parties also acknowledge that

the Court will consider the United States Sentencing Guidelines in determining the


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 7 of 13

appropriate sentence and stipulate to the following guidelines calculations. The

parties stipulate to the following guidelines calculations:

a.

Base Offense Level. The parties agree that the base offense level
for wire fraud is 7. (U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(a)(1)).

Specific Offense Characteristics. The parties agree that the
offense level should be increased by 18 levels because the
intended loss ($7,149,032) resulting from the offense was more
than $3,500,000 but not more than than $9,500,000. U.S.S.G. §
2B1.1(b)(1)@J). The parties agree that no other specific offense
characteristics apply.

Chapter 3 Adjustments. The parties agree that, other than
acceptance of responsibility, no other Chapter 3 adjustments

apply.

Acceptance of Responsibility. The government agrees to
recommend that the defendant receive a 2-level reduction for
acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). As
the defendant has timely notified the government of her intention
to enter a plea of guilty, the government agrees to recommend
that the defendant receive an additional 1-level reduction
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 83E1.1(b). Whether these reductions will
be imposed shall be determined by the Court in its discretion.
However, the defendant understands and agrees that the
government's recommendations are conditioned upon the
following: (1) the defendant testifies truthfully during the change
of plea and sentencing hearings; (2) the defendant provides full,
complete and truthful information to the United States Probation
Office in the pre-sentence investigation; and (8) the defendant
engages in no conduct inconsistent with acceptance of
responsibility before the time of sentencing, including frivolously
denying facts in the Presentence Report.

Criminal History Category. The parties believe that, at the time
of sentencing, the defendant will fall into Criminal History
Category VI. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. This does not constitute a
stipulation, but a belief based on an assessment of the
information currently known. The defendant’s actual criminal
history and related status will be determined by the Court based
on the information presented in the Presentence Report and by
the parties at the time of sentencing. The defendant understands

7


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 8 of 13

that if the presentence investigation reveals any prior adult or
juvenile sentence which should be included within her criminal
history under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the defendant will
be sentenced based on her true criminal history category, and she
will not be permitted to withdraw from this Plea Agreement.
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1.

f. Guidelines Range. If the adjusted offense level is 22, and the
criminal history category is VI, the Sentencing Guidelines range
is 84 to 105 months of imprisonment.

g. Fine Range. If the adjusted offense level is 22, the Sentencing
Guidelines fine range is $15,000 to $150,000. USS.G. §
5E1.2(c)(8).

h. Supervised Release. The Sentencing Guidelines require a term of

supervised release of at least 1 year up to a maximum supervised
release term of 3 years. U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(2).

8. Agreements as to Sentencing Recommendation. The government
agrees that it will not argue for a sentence of more than the high-end of defendant’s
guidelines range, unless defendant, while awaiting sentencing, commits further
crimes or engages in conduct inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility.
Defendant reserves the right to make departure motions and the government
reserves the right to oppose any such motions. If the Court does not accept the
sentencing recommendation of the parties, the defendant will have no right to
withdraw her guilty plea.

9. Discretion of the Court. The foregoing stipulations are binding on the
parties, but do not bind the Probation Office or the Court. The parties understand
that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory and their application is a matter that
falls solely within the Court’s discretion. The Court will make its own determination

regarding the applicable Guidelines factors and the applicable criminal history

8

CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 9 of 13

category. The Court may also depart from the applicable Guidelines range. If the
Court or the Probation Office determines that the applicable guideline calculations
or the defendant’s criminal history category is different from that stated above, the
parties may not withdraw from this agreement, and the defendant will be sentenced
pursuant to the Court’s determinations.

10. Special Assessment. The Guidelines require payment of a special
assessment in the amount of $100 for each felony count of which the defendant is
convicted, pursuant to Guideline § 5E1.3. The defendant agrees to pay the special
assessment prior to sentencing.

11. Revocation of Supervised Release. The defendant understands that
if the defendant were to violate any supervised release condition while on supervised
release, the Court could revoke the defendant’s supervised release, and the defendant
could be sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment up to the statutory
maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3588(e)(8). See U.S.S.G. §§ 7B1.4, 7B1.5. The
defendant also understands that as part of any revocation, the Court may include a
requirement that the defendant be placed on an additional term of supervised release
after imprisonment, as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3583(h).

12. Restitution Agreement. Defendant understands and agrees that the
Mandatory Victim Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A, applies and that the Court is
required to order the defendant to make restitution to the victims of her crime. The
parties agree that the amount of restitution is at least $4,708,191 (which includes

$4,666,318 in UI benefits and $41,873 in small business loans).


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 10 of 13

13. Disclosure of Assets. The defendant will fully and completely disclose
to the United States Attorney’s Office the existence and location of any assets in
which the defendant has any right, title, or interest, or over which the defendant
exercises control, directly or indirectly, including those assets held by a spouse,
nominee or other third party, or any business owned or controlled by the defendant.
The defendant agrees to assist the United States in identifying, locating, returning,
and transferring assets for use in payment of fines and/or forfeiture ordered by the
Court. The defendant agrees to complete a financial statement within two weeks of
the entry of her guilty plea. The defendant further agrees to execute any releases
that may be necessary for the United States to obtain information concerning the
defendant’s assets and expressly authorizes the United States to obtain a credit
report on the defendant to evaluate her ability to satisfy financial obligations imposed
by the Court. If requested by the United States, the defendant agrees to submit to
one or more asset interviews or depositions under oath.

14. Venue Waiver. Recognizing that the criminal conduct in this case
occurred in the State and District of Minnesota, as well as in various other states and
districts in the United States, the defendant waives all rights to challenge venue in
the State and District of Minnesota.

15. Forfeiture. The defendant agrees to forfeit to the United States,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), any
property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to

wire fraud, as charged in Count 2 of the Indictment.

10


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 11 of 13

16. Defendant agrees that the specific property subject to forfeiture in the

Indictment includes but is not limited to :

a. a 2016 Jaguar Sedan, bearing VIN: SAJBD4BV5GCY21649 and
temporary Nevada license plate number NX-672-282; and

b. $25,000 in funds seized from Comerica Bank account x9341 in the
name of “Auto Mall Automotive DBA Tobin Dodge Ram.”

(collectively, “the Seized Property”).

Defendant admits that the Seized Property is subject to forfeiture because it
constitutes or is traceable to the wire fraud scheme alleged in Count 2 of the
Indictment.

17. The United States reserves its right to seek a forfeiture money
judgment, to forfeit substitute assets, and to forfeit additional directly forfeitable
property. Defendant will receive a credit against this money judgment for the net
value of all assets that are forfeited from her in connection with this matter.

18. Defendant agrees that the United States may, at its option, forfeit the
Seized Property through civil, criminal or administrative proceedings, waives any
deadline or statute of limitations for the initiation of any such proceedings, and
abandons any interest she may have in the property. Defendant waives all statutory
and constitutional defenses to the forfeiture and waives any right to contest or
challenge (including direct appeal, habeas corpus, or any other means) such forfeiture
on any grounds. To the extent defendant has sought remission or otherwise
challenged the forfeiture of the above-described property, she withdraws any such

challenges.

11

CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 12 of 13

19. Defendant further agrees that she will not assist any third parties with
regard to any claims or petitions that third parties might file in subsequent
administrative or judicial forfeiture proceedings for the Seized Property.

20. Waivers of Appeal and Collateral Attack. The defendant hereby
waives the right to appeal any non-jurisdictional issues. This appeal waiver includes,
but is not limited to, the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal guilt or innocence,
sentence and restitution, and the constitutionality of the statutes to which the
defendant is pleading guilty. The parties agree, however, that excluded from this
waiver is an appeal by defendant of the substantive reasonableness of a term of
imprisonment above 105 months’ imprisonment. The defendant also waives the right
to petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 except based upon a claim of ineffective assistance
of counsel.

The defendant has discussed these rights with the defendant’s attorney. The
defendant understands the rights being waived, and the defendant waives these
rights knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

The United States agrees to waive its right to appeal any sentence except the
government may appeal the substantive reasonableness of a term of imprisonment
below 84 months’ imprisonment.

21. FOIA Requests. The defendant waives all rights to obtain, directly or
through others, information about the investigation and prosecution of this case
under the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. §§ 552,

552A,

12


CASE 0:22-cr-00131-ECT-DTS Doc. 28 Filed 12/13/22 Page 13 of 13

Conclusion

22. This is the entire agreement and understanding between the United
States and defendant.

23. Defendant and her attorney acknowledge that no threats, promises, or
representations have been made, nor agreements reached, other than those set forth
in this Plea Agreement, to cause defendant to plead guilty.

24. Defendant acknowledges that she has read this Plea Agreement and
carefully reviewed each provision with her attorney. Defendant further
acknowledges that she understands and voluntarily accepts every term and condition

of this Plea Agreement.

ANDREW M. LUGER

United StateszAttorney
Date: (2-19-2020 Whipp» Fo

BY: MATTHEW S. EBERT
Assistant United States Attorney

“TEQUISHA SOLOMON
Defendant

me WAV (OL

DOUGLAS OLSON ~
MATTHEW DEATES
Assistant Federal Defenders

Date: \2 A872

13

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mnd.201678.28.0.pdf

Size

887,897 bytes

SHA-256

f298cdc4d15a2f30169208908cf9aa9c3846c70930e1c6fdd40c8359dc39508a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mnd.201678.28.0.pdf

Original

archive.org