Court filing

Information - United States v. Tracy and Carolyn Wade

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed	2025-01-15

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 218 · 2025-01-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

The United States' Response to Defendant Carolyn Denise Wade's Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report, entered on the docket January 15, 2025 as Document 218 in United States v. Carolyn Denise Wade and Tracy D. Wade, No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The government answers objections filed January 10, 2025 (DE 214) and asks the court to overrule them, relying on the trial record and the jury's verdict of guilty on all counts in the superseding indictment. It addresses objections to paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 38, 43, 46, 51 and 60 of the PSR and takes no position on paragraph 77. On paragraph 60, the government argues that a loss of at least $41,666 from two PPP loans of $20,833 each supports a six-level increase and a total offense level of 11. The response is signed by Assistant United States Attorney David A. Snider.

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-60173-CR-KMW(s) (GRAHAM)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

CAROLYN DENISE WADE and
TRACY D. WADE,

Defendants.
/

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT CAROLYN DENISE WADE’S
OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT

Introduction
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds to
the objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) as to Defendant Carolyn Denise
Wade (“Defendant”). The U.S. Probation Office disclosed the PSR to the parties via CM/ECF on
December 17, 2024 (DE 209). Defendant filed her objections to the PSR on January 10, 2025
(DE 214) (the “Objections” or “Obj.”).
Responses
Offense Conduct
Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on all counts with
which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, the United States proved at trial all
of the facts set forth in the Offense Conduct section of the PSR (¶¶ 7-50).1 Accordingly, the Court
should overrule Defendant’s objection to “the paragraphs in the Offense Conduct Section of the

1 The United States summarized the record evidence in its response in opposition to Defendants’ post-
verdict motion for judgment of acquittal, filed on November 20, 2024, and respectfully refers the Court to
this summary. See DE 207 at 4-11.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025 Page 1 of 5

PSIR that assert [sic] she agreed with Haydee Rivero to defraud the United States, and any
paragraph that asserts that Haydee Rivero committed fraudulent acts at Ms. Wade’s direction.”
Obj. at 1-2.
Paragraphs 25
Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on all counts with
which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, the United States proved at trial the
facts set forth in paragraph 25 of the PSR, including that Defendant agreed with Haydee Rivero
and others to obtain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans from the SBA based on materially
false and fraudulent information. Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s objection
to paragraph 25 of the PSR.
Paragraph 26
Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on all counts with
which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, the United States proved at trial the
facts set forth in paragraph 26 of the PSR, including that Defendant agreed with Haydee Rivero
and others to knowingly and with the intent to defraud devise a scheme and artifice to defraud to
obtain money and property by means of false pretenses, representations or promises, and that such
money and property was the proceeds of such PPP loans. Accordingly, the Court should overrule
Defendant’s objection to paragraph 26 of the PSR.
Paragraph 27
Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on all counts with
which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, the United States proved at trial the
facts set forth in paragraph 27 of the PSR, including that Haydee Rivero, at the direction and with
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025 Page 2 of 5

the knowledge of her co-conspirators, including Defendant, created false and fictious IRS
Schedule C forms for PPP loan applications. Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s
objection to paragraph 27 of the PSR.
Paragraph 38
Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on all counts with
which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, the United States proved at trial the
facts set forth in paragraph 38 of the PSR, including that Haydee Rivero, acting at the direction
and with the knowledge of Defendant, created a false and fictitious IRS Schedule C for the tax
year 2019. Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s objection to paragraph 38 of the
PSR.
Paragraph 43
Based upon the evidence in the record, paragraph 43 of the PSR accurately reflects that
Haydee Rivero received $1,000 from Defendant, via Zelle transfer, on June 7, 2021.
Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s objection to paragraph 43.
Paragraph 46
Paragraph 46 of the PSR accurately reflects the facts established through the trial testimony
of Haydee Rivero regarding the names of individuals who received PPP loans based on a fake
Schedule C from created by Ms. Rivero. Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s
verdict of guilty on all counts with which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment,
the jury credited Ms. Rivero’s testimony. Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s
objection to paragraph 46 of the PSR.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025 Page 3 of 5

Paragraph 51
Based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on all counts with
which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, the United States proved at trial the
facts set forth in paragraph 51 of the PSR, including that Defendant and Tracy Wade conspired
with Haydee Rivero to apply for two PPP loans (loan numbers 6697269001 and 6261949003),
each in the amount of $20,833. Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s objection to
paragraph 51 of the PSR.
Paragraph 60

Paragraph 60 correctly calculates the specific offense characteristic for a loss of at least
$41,666, resulting in an increase of the offense level by six levels pursuant to § 2B.1(b)(1)(D). A
district court may hold participants in a conspiracy responsible for the losses resulting from the
reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v.
Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 974 (11th Cir. 2015). In this case, in addition to the loss resulting from
Defendant’s fraudulently obtained PPP loan ($20,833), the loss resulting from co-conspirator
Tracy Wade’s fraudulently obtained PPP loan ($20,833) was in furtherance of the conspiracy and
foreseeable to Defendant based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s verdict of guilty on
all counts with which Defendant was charged in the superseding indictment, and specifically Count
1 (conspiracy to commit wire fraud) and Count 4 (conspiracy to commit offenses against the
United States). Accordingly, the Court should overrule Defendant’s objection to paragraph 60 of
the PSR and find that the total offense level for Defendant is 11, consistent with paragraph 67 of
the PSR.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025 Page 4 of 5

Paragraph 77

The United States takes no position on Defendant’s objection to paragraph 77 of the PSR.
Conclusion
The United States respectfully requests that the Court overrule Defendant’s objections to
the PSR as set forth above. The United States will address the sentencing factors under Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3553(a) and make a sentencing recommendation as to Defendant in a
sentencing memorandum to be filed with the Court.

Respectfully submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: /s/ David A. Snider

David A. Snider
Assistant United States Attorney
Court ID No. A5502260
500 E. Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 660-5696
Fax: (954) 356-7336
Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 218 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025 Page 5 of 5

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.218.0.pdf
Size: 138,619 bytes
SHA-256: e9c193f52e62178647a4ef92e894868c87295778f6c68f4229471a6df91439d4
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.218.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)