Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum — No. 1:23-cr-10138 (Dkt. 151, D. Mass.)

Summary

A sentencing memorandum filed January 6, 2026 on behalf of Daniel Cleggett in United States v. Daniel Cleggett, Criminal No. 23-CR-10138-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, by attorney Kevin J. Reddington. It addresses the 18 U.S.C. §3553(a) factors and describes Cleggett's businesses in the substance abuse rehabilitation field. The memorandum states that three EIDL applications were submitted on April 1, 2020: for A Vision From God and Green Save at $150,000.00 each and for "Daniel Cleggett Sole Proprietorship" at $130,900.00. It admits that the EIDL loans were obtained from the government and that the applications misrepresented that Cleggett was not involved in any illegal activity.

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.

KEVIN j. REDUDINGION ® ATTORNEY AT LAW « 1342 BELMONT STREET * BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS U23UL * (908) 585-4250 DUS) S8U-O186

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151 Filed 01/06/26 Page1of7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Criminal No.
23-CR-10138-WGY

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
VS.

DANIEL CLEGGETT

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
I, Introduction and Background of Defendant |

The defendant, Daniel Cleggett, respectfully submits this sentencing memorandum
detailing the application of Title U.S.C. §3553(a) to the facts and circumstances of his offenses.
Mr. Cleggett, as the court can discern from the detailed and accurate information provided in the
PreSentence Report is a gentleman who is 49 years of age and will be 50 on February 21, 2026.
He is married to his wife, Torrey, who is a wonderful young lady and the mother of his three
children. They were married in September of 2022. Torrey is a home maker and she is very
supportive of Mr. Cleggett. They have three children who are ages 4, 3 and 1. Both Dan and his
family reside at 2 Wildwood Circle, Kingston, Massachusetts.

The court is aware from reviewing the PreSentence Report in its detail of his involvement
with the various businesses that he was able to establish in the substance abuse rehabilitation
business. The court is aware that he purchased, maintained and ran a number of sober living
houses and his wife continues to act in that capacity. The government has agreed that two of the
properties would be retained by the Cleggett family with his name on the deed and mortgage
alone but all running of the property would be by Torrey, especially while Mr. Cleggett is

incarcerated.


KEVIN J. REDDINGITON ® ATTORNEY AT LAW « 1342 BELMONT STREET « BROCKTON. MASSACHUSETTS 02301 * (9US} 383-4F280/(DUS) 3SU-O180,

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2of7

The defendant has presented the court with documentation that merely seeks to show that
the various criminal offenses that are presented to this court have significant mitigating factors
that would be of concern under §3553 and the sentencing powers of this court. The defendant
submits that as the Probation Department has agreed there is no loss to the banks in that all the
mortgages were placed on the properties which were properly maintained, taxes paid and
improved to the point where the value of the properties far exceeds the value of the mortgages
and there is no loss to the banks.

As it relates to the various insulation companies as set forth in the defendant's Opposition
to the PreSentence Report and its supporting documentation, the work that was contracted for by
citizens with corporations was performed, There were no complaints made or any objections to
quality or timeliness of the completed work. There is no doubt that the defendant has accepted
responsibility that he was representing in a fraudulent capacity to the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and various programs that he was contracting with by falsely representing that
permits were being obtained for the jobs when, in fact, many jobs were done without proper
permitting. He also once banned from working in the insulation business with the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts set up a straw corporation utilizing the assistance of his mother
and other family members to act in an ownership capacity of the insulation corporations while, in
fact, Mr. Cleggett was handling the management decisions and aspects of the same.

The important point the defendant is trying to present to this court is that the work on the
insulation companies was performed. The billings were submitted and the money was received
in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Mass. Save program and CLEAR Result
being a Mass. Save lead vendor. Mr. Cleggett had to, however, purchase the rolling stock

(trucks), installation equipment, employees and employment taxes as well as any and all


KEVIN J. REDDINGION * ATTORNEY AT LAW + 1342 BELMONT STREET * BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS UZ3UL * (908) 385-42Z5U/(5US) D5U-0 150.

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151_ Filed 01/06/26 Page 3of7

expenses related to the performance of the duties required under the contracts of the insulation
jobs. As pointed out, the defendant also notes that he never received even a salary himself and
did not benefit personally financially through the corporations but was rather trying to build a
business that would ultimately be self-supporting and ultimately successful.

As it relates to the EIDL loans, the defendant admits that the EIDL loans were obtained
from the government but notes that the EIDL applications that were submitted during the
pandemic were a product of misrepresentation in that he indicated he was not involved in any
illegal activity. The application was done online and electronically filled out and sent to various
servers outside of Massachusetts. Mr. Cleggett was advised by financial advisers through the
banks that he could submit the documentation and obtain the money on the EIDL loans, Mr.
Cleggett did, in fact, submit on April 1, 2020, three different EIDL applications; one for A
Vision From God in the amount of $150,000.00, one from Green Save in the amount of
$150,000.00 and one from “Daniel Cleggett Sole Proprietorship” for $130,900.00. Mr. Cleggett
has indicated that at the time he submitted the application on the Cleggett Sole Proprietorship he
submitted that in his own name and it automatically defaulted to a prior application that had been
filed under the name of Daniel Cleggett Sole Proprietorship.

In any event, the defendant accepts responsibility for receipt of the money in its entirety
and notes that records indicate that a number of the expenditures were legitimate for purposes of
the businesses but acknowledges that a significant portion of the Green Save, AVFG and
Cleggett Sole Proprietorship loans were used for personal use in violation of the EIDL terms and
conditions.

On April 12, 2022, additional loan modification was submitted and requested by Green

Save which was no longer in existence as A Vision From God and the other entities had been


KEVIN Jj. REDDING'EON ® ATTORNEY AT LAW « 1342 BELMONT STREET « BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS U25U1 © (U8) 355-4Z5U/(5US) 38-0180,

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151_ Filed 01/06/26 Page4of7

established by Mr. Cleggett. Mr. Cleggett asserts that a significant portion of the funds that he
had received under the EIDL in the amount of $30-0,000.00 was transferred to another entity.
These funds were not used for personal use. The defendant does acknowledge that his
communications to the SBA were, indeed, misleading because his mother did not write the email
and Green Save account was not new but had, in fact, been opened in 2018, Ultimately, Mr.
Cleggett removed his mother as a signatory to the Green Save accounts leaving Mr. Cleggett as
the only authorized signatory.

As it relates to the family trust, the defendant has accepted responsibility and clearly did
not apply funds received from the trustee of the family trust but, in fact, charged $3000/month
for legitimate housing costs for the sober home that the beneficiary of the trust whose money was
the trust res resided in and was successfully addressing his issues while in the sober home.

The money that was received by Cleggett from the family trust (beneficiary’s brother)
was $118,750.00 which was not retained by Mr. Cleggett but, in fact, was handed over to the
beneficiary of the trust. The defendant acknowledges therefore that there is fraud to the trust but
equitable principles should govern in the sense that the $118,750.00 was, in fact, the
beneficiary’s money and was given directly to him. Mr. Cleggett did not retain any of those
funds. |

The defendant agrees with the calculations by the Probation Department as to the
criminal history, ultimately resulting in a criminal history of 1V. The defendant agrees that there
has been an appropriate calculation by the Probation Department as to criminal history as
directed by §4A1.1 and 4A1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines. The defendant agrees that the
Probation Department has imposed the cut off of 15 years before the commencement of the

present offense for purposes of the time in the calculations. The defendant just points out to the


KEVIN J. KEDDING ION ® ATTORNEY AT LAW * 1342 BELMONT STREET ¢ BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS UZ3U1 © (9U8) 283-425U/(5US) DSU-O1 SO,

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151_ Filed 01/06/26 Page5of7

court that his record of convictions was clearly a product of himself being a severe drug addict
which resulted in many of the crimes that he was convicted of in the state courts. The defendant
suggests that it was important to note that since that time he has gotten married, become a father
of three children and attempted to survive during the pandemic and providing for his family
which unfortunately resulted in his involvement in the present cases before this court.

The defendant suggests that the criminal history may very well be over represented but
accepts the designation of a criminal history IV. The defendant has requested that the court enter
a calculation in the sentencing guidelines of an adjusted Base Offense Level of 14 with 2 points
added for more than sophisticated means and supervisory capacity constituting 18 points less 3
for acceptance of responsibility being a final adjusted Base Offense Level of 15 with a criminal
history of IV.

The defendant is a human being who clearly has had his flaws in his life resulting in his
convictions before the numerous courts of the Commonwealth and his present matters before this
court. The defendant, however, annexes copies of many letters of reference and recommendation
that he has received from numerous people that have crossed his path as a person individually as
well as in the court of the business of the sober homes. The defendant knows that the court reads
all of these letters and the defendant suggests that, at the very least, they indicate that he is a
person of redeeming factors and good qualities that ultimately can be consistent with his sobriety
and responsibilities as a parent and husband and a directive to his ultimate status as a productive
citizen upon his release.

I. A Probationary Sentence or Home Confinement is Appropriate under §3553(A)

In crafting an appropriate sentence, the court must consider the factors set forth in 18

U.S.C, §3553(a), The guiding principle in sentencing is that a sentence must be sufficient but


KEVIN J. REDVDINGION ® ATTORNEY AT LAW « 1342 BELMONT STREET * BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02301 * (US) 583-425U/(5US) 25-0150,

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151 Filed 01/06/26 Page 6 of 7

not greater than necessary. 18 U.S.C. §3553 (a); Kimbrough vs, United States, 552 U.S. 85,

101 (2007). As such, the sentencing guidelines are “merely advisory, which means that the
district court has considerable leeway to impose a sentence that falls outside the range

suggested.” United States vs. Robinson, 433 F.3d 31, 35 (1" Cir. 2005); see United States vs.

Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Indeed, the guidelines are “generalizations that can point to

outcomes that may appear unreasonable to sentencing judges,” See United States vs. Jimenez-

Beltre, 440 F.3d, 514, 518 (1" Cir, 2006). In light of potential conflicts between the guidelines
and an appropriate sentence under the circumstances, courts are free to “impose non-guideline

sentences that override guidelines, subject only to the ultimate requirement of reasonableness.”

Id.

Daniel Cleggett,
By his attorney

/s/Kevin J. Reddington, Esq.


KEVIN j. REDDING TON ® ATTORNEY AT LAW « 1342 BELMONT STREET * BROCKTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02301 * (DUS} 385-425U/(SUS) ISU-O1SO,

Case 1:23-cr-10138-WGY Document151 Filed 01/06/26 Page 7 of 7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Kevin J. Reddington, Esq., Attorney for the Defendant, Daniel Cleggett, hereby certify that the following documents filed
through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered parlicipants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing
(NEF) and paper copies wil! be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on January 6, 2026.

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

/s/Kevin J. Reddington, Esq.

File and source

File

151.pdf

Size

243,700 bytes

SHA-256

18f705c5aca5c4434626582db64f6f7784c090a427f631a15aa0a9a0fd8a5c38

Our copy

151.pdf