Docket 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS-1 — Doc 617-0

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia · No. 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS · Doc. 617 · 2025-04-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 
ABINGDON DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
) 
 
 
 
) 
 
No.:  1:24-CR-00017-01 
 
v. 
 
 
) 
 
JUDGE BALLOU 
 
 
 
) 
 
 
 
JOSEF LUDWIG BROWN 
 
) 
 
 
 
                                                                                                   
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM  
                                                                                                   
 
 
 
The United States of America, by and through undersigned counsel, files this 
sentencing memorandum for the Court’s consideration in the above-referenced matter 
scheduled for sentencing on April 24, 2025. The United States submits that a sentence at 
the high end of the advisory guidelines range of 37 to 46 months is the appropriate sentence, 
for the reasons set forth herein.  
 
Statement of the Case 
Summary of the Facts and Loss Amount 
The parties entered into a written plea agreement, which included an agreed 
stipulation of facts concerning Brown’s commission of the offenses for which he faces 
sentencing on April 24, 2025. (ECF Docs. 399, Plea Agreement; 400, Agreed Stipulation 
of Facts; 611, Final Presentence Report “PSR”.) The parties agreed that the facts contained 
within the agreed statement of facts were submitted for purposes of his guilty plea and did 
not necessarily constitute all of the facts in the case. (ECF Doc. 400, Agreed Stipulation of 
Facts.) The parties further agreed that other facts may be relevant at sentencing and that 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 1 of 11 
Pageid#: 3811

 
 
2 
both parties retained the right to present additional facts to the Court to ensure a fair and 
appropriate sentence in the case. (Id.) The offense facts are also set forth in Brown’s PSR 
and are incorporated herein by reference. (ECF Doc. 611, Revised Final PSR, Sealed 
Document, at ¶¶ 6-42, 101.)   
In brief summary, Brown and co-defendant Crystal Shaw were the two lead 
defendants in a 17-defendant scheme to file fraudulent claims for Pandemic 
Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”) benefits during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Id. at ¶¶ 8, 
10-12.) These fraudulent claims resulted in a total loss attributable to the Brown/Shaw 
scheme of $297,157. (Id. at ¶ 78.) In the agreed stipulation of facts, Brown admitted that 
he filed or caused to be filed his own fraudulent claim for unemployment benefits and 
further admitted that he solicited other co-conspirators to participate in this fraudulent 
scheme by providing their person identifying information (“PII”) to Shaw to file additional 
fraudulent claims for unemployment benefits. (Id. at ¶¶ 10-11.) Brown specifically 
admitted in the agreed statement of facts, which is supported in the discovery materials 
reviewed by the probation office in compiling the PSR, that he either solicited or provided 
PII to Shaw for the following individuals: M.F., T.J., co-defendant Justin Warren 
Meadows, R.R., N.T., J.S., I.S., and co-defendant Jason Dale Worley. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 86.) 
Brown further admitted that he and Shaw shared the proceeds from the fraudulent 
benefits paid for each of the ineligible claims of recertifications. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Jail 
communications between the pair also verified this arrangement, as did Shaw’s interview 
with law enforcement prior to her arrest. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 59, 89, 97.) He further admitted that 
he certified or conspired to have recertified on his own person behalf his eligibility for 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 2 of 11 
Pageid#: 3812

 
 
3 
benefits on at least 19 occasions during which he was incarcerated. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Brown 
also admitted that he is responsible for a loss amount between $40,000 and $150,000, 
which represents PUA benefits he and others were ineligible to receive. (Id. at ¶ 16.) 
Brown’s communications with Shaw while incarcerated support the agreed 
statement of facts and summary of the offense conduct contained within the PSR. (Id. at 
¶¶ 12, 17, 59, 89, 97.) Specifically, their communications captured Brown and Shaw 
passing along PII of some of the referenced individuals who were ineligible for the 
fraudulent PUA claims Brown and Shaw schemed to file in order to receive benefits for 
which they were ineligible. (Id. at ¶ 12.) The pair also agreed to share the proceeds from 
these fraudulent claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 12, 89, 97.) 
Brown’s own fraudulent claims totaled $28,696. (Id. at ¶ 100-101.) This includes 
his initial claim as well as all subsequent recertifications of eligibility, including 
recertifications made while Brown was incarcerated. (Id. at ¶¶ 13, 14, 80-84, 98, 100-101.) 
The United States intends to introduce at Brown’s sentencing hearing communications 
from the Virginia Employment Commission (“VEC”) which indicate Brown’s ineligibility 
for benefits due to his incarceration status. Further, the investigation has not revealed any 
evidence of eligible employment attributable to Brown for any dates he was not 
incarcerated. Brown’s VEC file is also devoid of any evidence of eligible employment. 
Law enforcement testimony at the sentencing hearing will further explain the investigative 
efforts undertaken to attempt to confirm any employment by Brown. This includes 
investigating claims that Brown ran a furniture repair or refinishing shop while not 
incarcerated. It is noteworthy that the investigation revealed that many of the claimants 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 3 of 11 
Pageid#: 3813

 
 
4 
whose fraudulent claims Brown admitted he conspired to file listed Brown’s alleged 
furniture refinishing shop, “New To You,” along with Brown’s home address on their 
fraudulent claims for benefits.  
The co-defendants and unindicted co-conspirators whose fraudulent claims Brown 
admitted he assisted in filing, along with their fraudulent benefits amounts, included the 
following:   
Co-defendant Justin Meadows 
$13,202 
Co-defendant Jason Worley 
$9,698 
M.F.  
 
 
 
$474 
T.J. 
 
 
 
 
PII provided to Shaw, no benefits paid  
R.R.  
 
 
 
$2,638 
N.T.  
 
 
 
PII provided to Shaw, no benefits paid 
J.S. 
 
 
 
 
$5,896 
I.S. 
 
 
 
 
PII provided to Shaw, no benefits paid 
T.S. 
 
 
 
 
$8,940 
 
(Id. at ¶¶ 85-86.) The investigation also revealed that Brown solicited and/or provided PII 
to Shaw for co-defendant Terrance Vilacha, whose fraudulent claims totaled $14,894. (Id. 
at ¶ 86.) 
 
It is important to note that Brown’s eligibility for PUA benefits was not solely 
driven by his incarceration status. Rather, each program for benefits assistance had specific 
criteria for eligibility, as set forth in the indictment and restated in the PSR. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-
31.) Key to each program’s eligibility was an individual’s recertification of their eligibility 
during each week benefits were available. That certification required that the individual 
certify they were unemployed due to the pandemic, that they were able and available for 
work during the week of the certification, and that they were actively seeking employment. 
(Id. at ¶¶15, 22, 25, 26.) Brown was not unemployed due to the pandemic, nor did he have 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 4 of 11 
Pageid#: 3814

 
 
5 
any qualifying reportable employment during periods he was not incarcerated. He was 
ineligible for the entire $28,696 in benefits paid due to his fraudulent claims and 
recertifications.  
 
And finally, Shaw’s own fraudulent claims totaled $34,650. (Id. at ¶ 77.) Brown 
should also be held accountable for Shaw’s total claims as a result of their mutual 
agreement to conspire to engage in this fraudulent scheme, as this is relevant conduct, 
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. Shaw and Brown acted in concert to conduct this scheme, 
engaged in actions in furtherance of the conspiracy, including conspiring to file fraudulent 
claims, and that Shaw filed her own fraudulent claim is part of the same course of conduct 
or common scheme or plan associated with this conspiracy. In addition, Shaw’s own 
fraudulent claim was part of the “jointly undertaken criminal activity” between her and 
Brown, as it is part of the same “criminal plan, scheme, endeavor, or enterprise undertaken 
by [Shaw] in concert with” Brown. U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, Application Note 3(A). In this 
context, Brown should be held accountable for the amount of Shaw’s fraudulent claims, as 
she should for his fraudulent claim amounts, because it was:  
(i)      within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity; 
(ii)     in furtherance of that criminal activity; and 
(iii)    reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity. 
 
Id.; see also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, Application Note 4(C)(ii).  
 
 
These amounts fraudulently paid to the co-defendants and unindicted co-
conspirators outlined above, Brown, and Shaw total $119,660, which represents the total 
amount of fraudulent claims for which Brown should be held responsible due to both his 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 5 of 11 
Pageid#: 3815

 
 
6 
personal responsibility and acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. (Id. at ¶¶ 101.) 
This is within the parties’ stipulated loss amount range in the agreed statement of facts. 
(ECF Doc. 400, Agreed Statement of Facts at ¶ 7.)  
The Presentence Report 
Brown stands convicted of Count 1 of the Indictment, conspiracy to defraud the 
United States by filing fraudulent claims for pandemic unemployment benefits. The 
maximum term of imprisonment is five years; the Court may also impose a term of 
supervised release of up to three years. (ECF Doc. 611, PSR at ¶¶ 404, 407.)  
Brown’s total offense level is 14 and his criminal history category is VI. (Id. at 
¶¶ 350-360, 362-379.) Accordingly, Brown’s imprisonment guideline range is 37 to 46 
months. (Id. at ¶ 405.) The United States concurs that the PSR properly calculates Brown’s 
guidelines and that this is the applicable advisory range.  
For reasons set forth herein, the United States recommends a sentence at the high 
end of the advisory guidelines range.     
 
The United States’ Sentencing Recommendation 
As Section 3553(a) provides, “the court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not 
greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of the 
subsection.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those purposes include the need for the sentence 
imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide 
just punishment, and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct. 18 U.S.C. 
§ 3553(a)(2). 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 6 of 11 
Pageid#: 3816

 
 
7 
Here, the starting point for the Court’s application of § 3553(a) is the advisory 
guidelines imprisonment range of 37 to 46 months. As set forth above concerning the 
offense conduct, the United States submits the PSR properly calculated Brown’s loss 
amount for the offense he conspired to commit and urges the Court to overrule the defense 
objections to the PSR’s guidelines and loss amount calculations and adopt the correctly 
calculated guidelines in the PSR.  
Consideration of the sentencing factors set forth in §§ 3553(a) and (f) demonstrate 
that a sentence of at the high end of the advisory guidelines range is appropriate. The Court 
is instructed to first look at the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 
characteristics of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Brown led a significant scheme to 
defraud the United States. He admitted that he and co-defendant Shaw led a conspiracy of 
17 defendants to defraud the United States of over $297,000 in fraudulently paid 
unemployment benefits. Brown not only filed or caused to be filed his own fraudulent claim 
and numerous recertifications, he also aided others in filing fraudulent claims totaling the 
payment of over $119,000 in fraudulent benefits. Brown engaged in these actions while 
incarcerated, demonstrating that even incarceration does not deter his criminal conduct. As 
a leader of this organization and the fraudulent scheme they engaged in, his punishment 
should be at the high end of the applicable guidelines, compared to other less culpable co-
defendants. 
As to Brown’s history, the PSR documents his extensive criminal history, including 
repeated convictions for engaging in crimes involving fraud (even as a juvenile) and 
repeated violations of supervised probation. (ECF Doc. 611, Revised Final PSR at ¶¶ 362-
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 7 of 11 
Pageid#: 3817

 
 
8 
376.) It is notable that his first conviction occurred as a juvenile at age 17 for a fraud 
offense—forgery and uttering a forged check. (Id. at ¶ 362.) Brown’s criminal history 
includes 12 other fraud-related convictions, as well as serious felony convictions for drug 
possession, abduction, breaking and entering, felonious possession of a firearm, 
obstruction of justice, and other convictions. (Id. at ¶¶ 362-376.) Brown has incurred at 
least eight separate convictions for violating probation (on different dates and in connection 
with different terms of supervision). (Id. at ¶¶ 366, 371, 372.) This history demonstrates 
that prior periods of incarceration and supervised probation did not deter his continued 
criminal conduct and that he is non-compliant with Court-ordered terms of supervision. It 
is further of note that Brown was incarcerated when he engaged in this fraud scheme. In 
short, the defendant’s current and prior conduct was very serious and necessarily 
demonstrates that a significant period of incarceration is appropriate, given his propensity 
to engage in fraud-related crimes and high likelihood of recidivism.   
As to affording adequate deterrence, the Court must look at deterring not only the 
defendant from willful violation of the law, but must also impose a sentence which serves 
as a general deterrent. The extent of Brown’s own criminal history – including his history 
of repeated fraud convictions dating back to 1998 – also demonstrates the seriousness of 
this offense, impact on the community, and his high risk of recidivism.  
In addition, Brown’s offense is serious. According to the United States Department 
of Labor, Virginia paid approximately $1.1 billion in fraudulent unemployment claims 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 8 of 11 
Pageid#: 3818

 
 
9 
between April 1, 2020, and March 31, 2021.1 By leading this conspiracy to defraud the 
United States, Brown contributed to the rampant and costly fraud that occurred during the 
COVID pandemic. This fraudulent scheme negatively impacted society and the community 
as a whole. Brown’s actions breached the government’s trust in efforts to get money into 
the hands of those in need, as these programs were administered in good faith reliance on 
claimant’s information during the pandemic. Such fraudulent actions could hamper future 
programs and prevent those truly in need from access to much-needed emergency 
assistance. 
As described above, Brown’s history also demonstrates that prior periods of 
incarceration and supervised probation did not deter his continued criminal conduct and 
that he repeatedly failed to comply with court-imposed conditions of release. Due to the 
serious offense conduct, the defendant’s prior criminal history, and high risk of recidivism, 
the sentence imposed in this case must serve as a specific and general deterrent. Lastly, as 
a leader of this conspiracy, Brown’s conduct should also be more severely punished than 
other minor co-defendants in this case as both a specific and general deterrent. Other less 
culpable defendants who only played a minor role in this conspiracy received reduced 
sentences for their minor roles in the conspiracy and relatively low loss amounts. As a 
leader of this conspiracy, Brown is held responsible for among the highest loss amounts 
attributable to defendants in this conspiracy—$119, 660—and co-led this conspiracy from 
 
1 Unemployment Insurance Payment Accuracy Datasets, U.S. Department of Labor, 
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/unemployment-insurance-payment-accuracy/data (last 
visited April 17, 2025).   
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 9 of 11 
Pageid#: 3819

 
 
10 
jail with co-defendant Shaw. These are aggravating factors that the Court should consider 
and weigh in favor of a sentence at the high end of the guidelines.   
Accordingly, based on the above, and having undertaken an individualized 
assessment of the § 3553(a) factors as they relate to Brown, the United States submits that 
the Court should impose a sentence of imprisonment at the high end of the advisory 
guidelines range. The United States submits that this sentence is necessary to achieve the 
goals of sentencing articulated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), as outlined herein.   
 
The Sentencing Hearing 
 
The United States anticipates calling the following witnesses at Brown’s sentencing 
hearing: 
1. FBI S.A. Lindsey Rosson 
2. Department of Labor S.A. Jeff Carter 
 
The United States anticipates utilizing the following exhibits at Brown’s sentencing 
hearing:  
1. ECF Doc. 399, Plea Agreement 
2. ECF Doc. 400, Agreed Stipulation of Facts 
3. ECF Doc. 611, Revised Final PSR  
4. Brown’s VEC file, including initial claim, recertifications, and 
correspondence  
5. Brown and Shaw’s jail communications  
 
 
 
 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 10 of 11 
Pageid#: 3820

 
 
11 
Respectfully submitted,  
Zachary T. Lee 
Acting United States Attorney 
 
                  
 
By: s/M. Suzanne Kerney-Quillen             
M. SUZANNE KERNEY-QUILLEN 
  
 
 
 
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 
 
VSB No. 66633 
180 W. Main Street, Suite B19 
Abingdon, VA 24210 
(276) 628-4161 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I hereby certify that on April 17, 2025, a copy of the foregoing was filed 
electronically.  Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic 
filing system to all parties indicated on the electronic filing receipt.  All other parties will 
be served by regular U.S. mail.  Parties may access this filing through the Court’s 
electronic filing system. 
 
s/M. Suzanne Kerney-Quillen                     
M. SUZANNE KERNEY-QUILLEN 
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 
 
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS     Document 617     Filed 04/17/25     Page 11 of 11 
Pageid#: 3821

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.vawd.131636.617.0.pdf

Size

160,273 bytes

SHA-256

2b42d9e6bbc5f100d4ffbab888b6204d7abf368816c8bedd933a526793f53d08

Our copy

gov.uscourts.vawd.131636.617.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)