Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings United States v. Tracy D. Wade Indictment — United States v. Tracy D. Wade (Dkt. 220, S.D. Fla. No. 0:23-cr-60173)

Court filing

Indictment — United States v. Tracy D. Wade (Dkt. 220, S.D. Fla. No. 0:23-cr-60173)

Filed January 15, 2025 in United States v. Tracy D. Wade; one of 133 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed2025-01-15

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 220 · 2025-01-15 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Page 1 of 8 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO. 23-60173-CR-WILLIAMS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                                    
 
           Plaintiff,                                                                         
v. 
 
CAROLYN DENISE WADE and  
TRACY D. WADE,  
           
 Defendant, 
______________________________________________/ 
 
 
 
DEFENDANT CAROLYN WADE’S MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD 
 BOOKER VARIANCE  
 
 
Defendant, Carolyn Wade, through counsel, respectfully requests that the Court 
impose a sentence below the advisory guideline imprisonment range pursuant to 18 
U.S.C § 3553 and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005). In support 
thereof, Ms. Wade states:  
Background 
 
Ms. Wade awaits sentencing after having been convicted of one count of conspiracy 
to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U,S.C. § 1349; one count of wire fraud, in violation 
of 18 U,S.C. § 1343; one count of general conspiracy in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and 
three counts of false statements against to the Small Business Association (SBA), in 
violation of 15 U.S.C 645(a). (DE 183). The counts of conviction were charged in a 
superseding indictment which alleged that Ms. Wade and her husband, Tracy Wade, 
with conspiring to fraudulently obtain Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 1 of 8

Page 2 of 8 
provided by the Small Business Administration during the COVID-19 Pandemic. (DE 
88). 
 
 Ms. Wade was one of seventeen Broward Sheriff Deputies accused of falsifying 
paperwork to obtain PPP loans or Economic Disaster Loans (EIDL). See 17 Broward 
deputies charged in pandemic loan fraud, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, updated October 
12, 
2023, 
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/2023/10/12/multiple-broward-sheriffs-
employees-facing-indictments-over-pandemic-relief-fund-misuse/ 
Ms. 
Wade 
was 
originally charged with only one count of wire fraud for fraudulently obtaining a loan in 
the amount of $20,833. (DE 3).  
 
Ms. Wade was tried on the original indictment in May of 2024. The Court declared 
a mistrial after the Jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. (DE 72).  During the 
first trial, Mr. Tracy Wade testified that a third party, Haydee Rivero, helped him obtain 
a PPP loan and he encouraged his wife to also obtain a PPP loan. Thereafter, the 
government filed a superseding charging both Mr. and Mrs. Wade with various offenses 
related to fraudulent obtaining two PPP loans. (DE 88). The total amount of both loans 
was $41,666. Presentence Investigation Report (PSIR) ¶ 51. 
 
The United States has prepared a PSIR which includes a calculation of a 
recommended advisory guideline sentence pursuant to the United States Sentencing 
Guidelines Manual. According to the PSIR, Ms. Wade’s total offense level is 11 and her 
criminal history category is I. At offense level 11, and criminal history category I, the 
advisory guideline imprisonment range is 8 to 14 months in Zone B of the Sentencing 
Table.  
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 2 of 8

Page 3 of 8 
 
Because the advisory guidelines imprisonment range is in Zone B of the 
Sentencing Table, the Guidelines authorize a sentence other than imprisonment. See 
PSIR ¶ 105. Also, Ms. Wade has filed an objection to the offense level computation based 
on the loss attributable to her and argues that the offense level should be 9 rather than 
11. At offense level 9, the advisory guideline imprisonment range is 4 to 11 months in 
Zone B of the Sentencing Table.  
Argument and Memorandum of Law  
 
Ms. Wade is a 49-year-old married woman with no prior criminal convictions or 
arrests. PSIR ¶¶ 68-72. Accordingly, Ms. Wade has zero criminal history points. She is 
the mother of two adult children and one 11-year-old minor child. PSIR ¶¶ 79 and 82. 
Prior to her arrest in this case, Ms. Wade had been employed by the Broward Sherriff’s 
Office for twenty years as a detention deputy. PSIR ¶¶ 90 and 92.  
 
In Booker v. United States, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), the Supreme Court 
excised the statutory provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3553 that made the Sentencing Guidelines 
mandatory, thereby rendering them advisory. Id. at 244-46, 125 S.Ct. at 756-57. While 
this Court must still correctly calculate the guideline range, there is no presumption that 
a guideline sentence is a reasonable and appropriate sentence. Gall v. United States, 552 
U.S. 38, 49-50, 128 S.Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The Court must make an individualized 
assessment based on the facts presented. Id.   
When fashioning such a sentence, the sentencing court must consider the factors 
set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Those factors are: 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 3 of 8

Page 4 of 8 
1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and  
characteristics of the defendant;  
 
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 or the offense;  
 
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;  
 
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and  
 
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational 
training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the 
most effective manner;  
 
3) The kinds of sentences available;  
4)  The advisory guideline range;  
5)  Any pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing  
    Commission;  
6) The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities; and  
7) The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 
 
 
The statute contains an overarching provision instructing district courts to impose 
a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 
sentencing. See Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 82, 101, 128 S.Ct. 558, 570 (2007) 
citing 18 U.S.C. § 3553.  
 
It has been a 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 
crimes and punishment to ensue. Pepper v. United States, 131 S.Ct. 1229, 1239-40 (2010). 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 4 of 8

Page 5 of 8 
Both Congress and the Sentencing Commission have expressly preserved the traditional 
discretion of sentencing courts to conduct an inquiry broad in scope, largely unlimited 
either as to the kind of information they may consider, or the source from which it may 
come. Pepper, 131 S.Ct at 1240. Congress could not have been clearer in directing that 
“[n]o limitation ... be placed on the information concerning the background, character, 
and conduct of a defendant that a district court may receive and consider for the purpose 
of imposing an appropriate sentence.” Id. citing 18 U.S.C. § 3661. 
 
In this case, Ms. Wade is requesting that the Court sentence her to a term of 
probation.  While the offenses of conviction are serious, the offenses involved no violence, 
weapons, controlled substances, or physical injury. As stated earlier, Ms. Wade has no 
prior criminal convictions or prior arrests.  
 
Other than her involvement in the instant offense and her twenty years of service 
as a Broward Sheriff Office Detention Deputy, Ms. Wade has had no prior involvement 
in the criminal justice system.   
 
One of the goals of sentencing is to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities.  The 
vast majority of Broward Sheriff Officers that were convicted of fraudulently obtaining 
PPP loans were sentenced to a term of probation.1 For instance, in United States v. 
 
1 Alexandra Acosta, 23-60170-Cr-Scola sentenced to 4 months imprisonment 
 
George Anthony, III 23-80168-Cr-Cannon, sentenced to 1 year probation 
 
Katrina Brown, 23-60169-Cr-Altman, sentenced to 3 years’ probation 
 
Rorie Brown, 23-60174-Cr-Williams, sentenced to 1 year probation 
 
Keshondra Davis, 23-60184-Cr-Altman, sentenced to 2 years’ probation 
 
Allen Dorvil, 23-60185-Cr-Moore sentenced to 2 years’ probation 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 5 of 8

Page 6 of 8 
Gonder, 24-60003-KMW, a Broward Sheriff Office Lieutenant was convicted of 
fraudulently obtaining PPP loans totaling $168,248.41. That defendant was sentenced 
to a 5-year term of probation. United States v. Gonder, 24-600003-Cr--KMW (DE 30).  
 
Closer to home, Haydee Rivero, the co-conspirator in the instant case was 
sentenced to a 36-month term of probation in case number 24-60124-Cr-RS (DE 33). Ms. 
Rivero created and uploaded false IRS schedule C forms that were included in the PPP 
loan applications for Mr. and Mrs. Wade, and several others, and caused losses to the 
SBA totaling $229,163. PSIR ¶ 52. Furthermore, it was Haydee Rivero that solicited 
Tracy Wade to apply for a PPP loan.  
 
Another factor listed in § 3553 is the need to provide restitution to any victims in 
the case. Here, Mr. and Mrs. Wade have already paid the $41,666.00 in restitution to be 
ordered in this case. (DE 216).  
 
Ritchie Dubuisson-23-60183-Cr-Martinez sentenced to 5 years’ probation 
 
Keith Dunkley -23-60197-Cr-Smith sentence to 1 year probation 
 
Alexis Greene 23-60182-Cr-Dimitrouleas sentenced to time serve 1 day, 3 years supervised release.  
 
Jewell Johnson  23-60172-Cr-Martinez sentenced to 5 years’ probation 
 
La'Keitha Lawhorn, 23-60171-Cr-Bloom – sentenced to time served 1 day, 3 years’ supervised release 
 
Ancy Morancy, 23-60191-Cr-Bloom – sentenced to 2 years’ probation  
 
Derrick Nesbitt, 23-60193-Cr-Bloom – sentenced to 5 years’ probation 
 
Jean Pierre-Toussant, 23-60189-Cr-Moore – sentenced to 1 year probation 
 
Marcus Powell, 23-60192-Cr-Gayle – sentenced to 1 year probation 
 
Stephanie Smith, 23-60203-Cr-Bloom (Cohn) -sentenced to 7 months imprisonment 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 6 of 8

Page 7 of 8 
 
Ms. Wade has strong family and community support as evidenced by the letters 
sent to the Court by her friends and family. See (DE 217).  The letters describe Ms. Wade 
as a generous, compassionate and a pillar of her community.  
 
A sentence of probation is a statutorily permissible sentence. PSIR ¶ 110. 
Additionally, because the advisory guideline imprisonment range is in Zone B of the 
Sentencing Table, the minimum advisory term of imprisonment can be satisfied by a 
sentence of probation that includes a condition of home detention. PSIR ¶ 105; USSG § 
5C1.1(c)(3).   
 
Moreover, because Ms. Wade received an adjustment under USSG § 4C1.1 and 
the advisory guideline imprisonment range is in Zone B, a sentence other than 
imprisonment is encouraged. PSIR ¶ 106. If a defendant is a nonviolent first offender, 
and the applicable guideline range is in Zone A or Zone B of the Sentencing Table, the 
Court should consider imposing a sentence other than imprisonment. USSG § 5C1,1, 
comment. (n.3); see 28 U.S.C §994(j).   
Conclusion 
 
 Based on the foregoing facts, arguments and citation to authorities, the defendant 
Carolyn Wade respectfully requests that the Court grant her motion for Downward 
Booker Variance and impose a sentence other than imprisonment. 
 
 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 7 of 8

Page 8 of 8 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading was 
electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court via CM/ECF. I also certify that the 
foregoing pleading was served electronically on this date on all counsel of record via 
Notice of Electronic Filing generated by CM/ECF on January 15, 2025.  
 
                                                            
  
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
/s/ Daryl E. Wilcox.___ 
Daryl E. Wilcox, Esquire  
F.B.N. 838845  
5201 S.W. 18th Street 
Plantation, Florida 33317 
(954) 303-1457 
darylewilcox06@gmail.com  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Johnny L. McCray, Jr. 
Johnny L. McCray, Jr. PA 
F.B.N. 342319 
Law Office of Johnny L. McCray, Jr. 
400 East Atlantic Boulevard 
Pompano Beach, FL 33060 
(954) 781-3662 
mccrayjlaw@gmail.com 
Attorneys for Defendants  
Tracy Wade and Carolyn Wade 
 
 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 220   Entered on FLSD Docket 01/15/2025   Page 8 of 8

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.flsd.670191.220.0.pdf
Size
288,844 bytes
SHA-256
c69b5e18aaa75a07db8e63f7c9abff33c630e1481674c46ea98630a1985cbfaf
Our copy
gov.uscourts.flsd.670191.220.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top