Court filing
Sentencing Hearing Transcript — United States v. Adiana Pierre
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-06-07 |
U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ · Doc. 86 · 2024-06-07 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A transcript of the sentencing hearing in United States v. Adiana Pierre, No. 1:24-CR-10007, held June 7, 2024 before the Honorable Myong J. Joun in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed August 13, 2024 as Document 86. The court calculates a base offense level of 6, adds 18 levels for a loss between 3.5 and 9.5 million dollars and one level for a conspiracy under Title 18, U.S.C. 1957, and applies reductions to a total offense level of 20, for a guideline range of 33 months to 41 months in criminal history category 1. The transcript records restitution of $5,479,708, a forfeiture money judgment of $427,605, and the government's recommendation of 30 months in prison and three years of supervised release. The 34-page transcript ends with the court's advice on the right to appeal and the reporter's certificate.
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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
Plaintiff,
)
vs
) No. 1:24-CR-10007
ADIANA PIERRE,
)
Defendant.
)
BEFORE THE HONORABLE MYONG J. JOUN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SENTENCING HEARING
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
Courtroom No. 20
One Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
FRIDAY, JUNE 7, 2024
11:00 A.M.
Catherine L. Zelinski, RPR, CRC
Official Court Reporter
John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse
One Courthouse Way, Room 7205
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
Email: CAL.Zelinski.Steno@gmail.com
Mechanical Steno - Computer-Aided Transcript
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 1 of 34
2
APPEARANCES:
David M. Holcomb
United States Attorney's Office MA
One Courthouse Way
Suite 9200
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 756-9043
Email: David.Holcomb@usdoj.gov
for Plaintiff.
Michael R. DiStefano
Todd & Weld
One Federal Street
27th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: 617-720-2626
Email: Mdistefano@toddweld.com
for Defendant.
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 2 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE CLERK: All rise.
(The Honorable Court Entered.)
THE CLERK: The Court is now in session. Please be
seated. Criminal Action, 24-10007, United States versus Adiana
Pierre.
Would counsel please identify yourselves for the
record.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: Good morning, your Honor. David
Holcomb for the United States.
THE COURT: Good morning, good to see you again.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: You as well.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: Good morning, your Honor.
Michael DiStefano on behalf of Ms. Adiana Pierre. I also have
with me my colleague, Lianna Lamattian.
THE COURT: All right.
ATTORNEY LAMATTIAN: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning to all of you.
And, Ms. Pierre, good morning.
THE DEFENDANT: Good morning.
THE COURT: All right, so we're here for sentencing.
I received and reviewed the presentence report as revised on
May 31st, the government's sentencing memo as well as the
defendant's sentencing memo filed on May 31st as well. And
I've also reviewed the attachments to your memo including the
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 3 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
4
nine letters in support of Ms. Pierre. I see that there's a
motion for an order of forfeiture. There's a motion for a
preliminary order of forfeiture. There's no other material, to
my knowledge other than that.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: Nothing else, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
And, Mr. DiStefano, have you reviewed the presentence
report with your client?
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: I have, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
And you've discussed the objection by the government?
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: Yes.
THE COURT: All right.
And, Ms. Pierre, you've had a chance to review the
presentence report with your attorney?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
So, let me quickly just address the government's
objection for the same reasons that I stated on the record
during the sentencing of the co-defendant, Mr. Alexandre. I
will adopt the analysis made by probation. So we'll begin with
the base offense level of 6. And, again, Mr. Holcomb, I will
note the government's objection.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: Thank you.
THE COURT: And from the PSR, it looks like -- well,
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 4 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
5
although it's styled as objections by the defendant, it appears
to be more of a motion for variance?
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: That's right, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
So maybe we can discuss that after we get through the
guideline sentencing.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: Certainly.
THE COURT: All right.
So then let me turn to the calculations starting with
the base offense level of 6. Since the loss was between 3.5
and 9.5 million dollars, 18 levels are added. That brings us
to 24. Because Ms. Pierre pled guilty to a conspiracy under
Title 18, U.S.C. 1957, I will add one level. That brings us to
25. Ms. Pierre meets the criteria to zero point offender. So
that total of 25 is decreased by two to 23, because she clearly
demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for the offense.
That's decreased by another two levels to 21. And finally, she
notified authorities of her intention to enter into a plea of
guilty, thereby permitting the government to avoid preparation
for trial, permitting the Court to allocate its resources
sufficiently, will decrease it by one additional level to 20.
Any disagreement?
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: No, your Honor.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: No, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: So, based upon a total offense level of 20
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 5 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
and a criminal history score of -- I'm sorry, a criminal
history category of 1, as I understand it, the guideline range
is 33 months to 41 months. Supervised release, range is one to
three years, a fine range of 15,000 to 150,000, and a mandatory
special assessment of $100 on each count.
I understand that there's an agreement on the
restitution and that amount is the total amount of loss which
is $5,479,708. Correct?
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: Correct, your Honor. I think the
plea agreement, just more to be precise, says that that's what
the government's going to recommend. I don't know that it's
agreed upon, but I don’t think that there's an objection
either.
THE COURT: Mr. --
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: We are not objecting, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
And the government's order of forfeiture in the form
of a money judgment in the amount of $427,605?
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: That's correct, your Honor. And
that is an agreed upon -- right, I should say an admission that
those are, that's the amount subject to forfeiture.
THE COURT: All right.
And a preliminary order with regard to the motor
vehicle?
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: Yes.
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 6 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
THE COURT: All right.
So, I will hear from you, Mr. Holcomb, as to the
government's recommendation.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: Thank you, your Honor.
Government is recommending a sentence of 30 months in
prison, three years of supervised release, and the restitution
amount just discussed. As I go through the sentencing factors
under 3553(a), I'll try to address in particular two things
that I think come through from the sentencing memos, including
specifically Ms. Pierre's conduct relative to her co-defendants
including Mr. Alexandre, who was sentenced last week, as well
as Ms. Pierre's personal circumstances which I'll acknowledge
upfront presents some weighty considerations.
With respect to the nature and circumstances of her
offense, starting there, Ms. Pierre didn't get a large paycheck
protection loan herself. Mr. Ford, her co-defendant did
fraudulently get her the maximum loan that was available to
just a single-person business, but that was only around
$21,000. But what Ms. Pierre did after that, was I think can
fairly be described as trying to make a business out of getting
other people loans that they weren't entitled to.
She and Mr. Ford partnered to recruit other borrowers
to apply for loans. Mr. Ford handled the paperwork but
Ms. Pierre did initiate those referrals and passed along
information to Mr. Ford so that he could prepare those
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 7 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
8
applications, and that resulted in numerous applications that
were approved by lenders and millions of dollars in Paycheck
Protection Program funds that were meant to shore up small
businesses and pay employees, and those funds were instead
diverted to borrowers who were not eligible for the amounts
that they received as a result of the misrepresentations on the
applications.
And in, and they made money doing this. They accepted
commissions or kickbacks from the borrowers that they helped.
The PSR references just a few, but to point out one, there was
-- I believe there was a computer technician that received a
loan of, like, $600,000 and both Ms. Pierre and Mr. Ford each
received checks of $60,000 of Paycheck Protection Program funds
from that borrower for their assistance. And there were
others. In some cases, Mr. Ford split commissions with
Ms. Pierre. Other times she collected commissions separately.
And as your Honor's aware, based on the sentencing of
co-defendant Gardy Alexandre, Ms. Pierre also recruited
Mr. Alexandre to get a loan from Mr. Ford. He got a $300,000
loan. He paid a kickback and then he also started finding
borrowers for Mr. Ford to submit fraudulent applications for.
And that led to more kickbacks. And so this was a serious
offense. A serious pandemic relief fraud because it involves
not just lies on applications for Ms. Pierre, but an
overarching plan to do this across many borrowers and to make
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 8 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
money by doing that.
Turning to Ms. Pierre's personal history and
characteristics, her background makes this offense puzzling.
Both Ms. Pierre and Mr. Ford have backgrounds that show a
concern for others and community involvement, a lot of
community involvement. And Ms. Pierre also has, has an
education with some work in criminal justice. And the work she
was doing at the time of the pandemic she was selling
insurance. So she was working in personal finances. She
understood that -- or she must have understood that loans are
based on representations, and that it's fraud to lie to a
lender.
So she and Mr. Ford in June and July in particular,
that was a two-month flurry of referrals and applications and
kickbacks. And I'll acknowledge that there may be multiple
motives for that, for that conduct, including helping friends
take advantage of a program, but what it really points to is a
get-rich-quick mentality. Let's make a lot of money off of PPP
funds that are there for the taking.
The defendant's memo describes some family
circumstances or household circumstances, some of which appear
to have occurred after this conduct, but some of which appeared
to have already been present during this conduct. And so, you
know, crediting that account, it doesn't boil down to greed per
se, but certainly this two-month flurry represents a mindset of
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 9 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
willingness to take advantage of, of a program that was
unfortunately very easy to take advantage of.
And I'll try to address the concern regarding the fact
that Ms. Pierre has two children. The government is
recommending a prison sentence. It's not an insignificant
prison recommendation, and nobody, nobody is happy about
recommending prison for a parent, especially a single parent.
And so I'll recognize that Ms. Pierre does have children of
teenage age or almost teenage age that she would be taken away
from. And that consideration in our view, has to be balanced
with the significance of the conduct, how extensive it was, how
much in fraud losses it caused. And so our recommendation has
tried to account for that, but I'll recognize that it's a
significant personal consideration.
With respect to avoiding disparities in sentences,
looking at her conduct and her culpability relative to the
others, I want to be careful not to overstate her role. She
was certainly central to this schemes as was Mr. Ford. I think
they were central to the scheme in different ways, because they
had different functions. I wouldn't really place one far above
the other in terms of culpability. Both of their conduct led
to many loans and losses from those loans.
THE COURT: So last week at Mr. Alexandre's
sentencing, I was under the impression, and I don’t think
that's anyone's fault, I think it was just my own mistake in
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 10 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
assuming that Ms. Pierre was somehow the mastermind of this
scheme. Reviewing the material more carefully, am I correct
that certainly she might be more culpable than Mr. Alexandre
because of the scope and the amounts involved, but she was
similarly, as Mr. Alexandre, she was more sort of the recruiter
and receiving kickbacks, she didn't herself submit any false
fraudulent applications. If anything, Mr. Ford is more
culpable than Ms. Pierre.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: I think that's accurate, your
Honor. And I wouldn't consider it a mistake. I think it's
just -- the way I think about it is that Ms. Pierre is more
culpable than Mr. Alexandre, one because she was more of an
initiator of this conduct. And I think it is fair to say that
she, with Mr. Ford, decided to just start doing this for other
people. And that's something that sets her apart from
Mr. Alexandre. And then there's also just the difference in
degree. She recruited more people which led to higher losses.
And so she certainly is more culpable than Mr. Alexandre.
Whether she's more culpable than Mr. Ford or whether Mr. Ford
is more culpable than her, I think it's difficult to say based
on their separate functions. Without Ms. Pierre, Mr. Ford, I
think, would not have been submitting the applications for lots
of borrowers, because he wasn't going out and finding the
borrowers. She was the one who referred the borrowers to him.
And so I think that they just had separate roles, but they were
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 11 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
both similarly central to this scheme. And so that's at least
how I've viewed it.
THE COURT: Okay.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: And this is -- just a similar note,
your Honor, the government hasn't gotten as far as to consider
Ms. Pierre an organizer for purposes of a guidelines
enhancement, for being an organizer or recruiter, because it --
in my view that would overstate kind of the level of
organization to this and suggest that she did a lot more beyond
identifying people who wanted loans and connecting them with
Mr. Ford. And of course taking the payments in return.
So that's why the government's recommendation relative
to the recommendation we made for Mr. Alexandre is slightly
higher. It's to account for the fact that she was more
slightly to the scheme. It's only slightly higher. There was
criminal history in Mr. Alexandre's case. There is no criminal
history in Ms. Pierre's case. So the recommendation comes out
somewhat close to each other but her, I do think that she is
culpable in a way that merits a higher sentence.
And lastly, your Honor, with respect to the other
sentencing goals, this was conduct that degraded respect for
the pandemic relief programs specifically. The Paycheck
Protection Program was a generous federal program enacted at a
time of national emergency, and I think it's fair to say that
there's now a lot of public cynicism towards pandemic relief
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 12 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
programs, because lots of people have heard stories about other
people getting loans that they weren't entitled to. Other
people getting loans and spending the money on themselves. I
think that this type of conduct caused a lot of distrust in
this type of program. And Ms. Pierre's conduct unfortunately
led to many instances of that happening with different
borrowers. So her sentence should promote respect for the law
and ensure the public that there are consequences for taking
advantage of aid like this.
And with respect to deterrence, your Honor, I can't
say that Ms. Pierre presents a risk of re-offending. I do
think she appears very industrious. I think one flip side of
that is she appears somewhat susceptible to a sort of not get
rich quick, but make money quick mentality. But I, I credit
that this will be a lesson. So I think general deterrence is
more important here and that a 30-month sentence would send the
message to others that there are consequences to this type of
fraud. So, your Honor, the 30-month sentence is where we came
down in terms of what's sufficient, but no more than necessary
to address those various sentencing goals.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Holcomb.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: May it please the Court.
Before I address Mr. Holcomb's comments, I'd like to
thank him for his professionalism. It's been 18 months since
the case originated, if you will, and in my interactions and
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 13 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
conversations with him, he's been very candid. I think he's
been fair minded. I think he has seen the case for what it is
and what it isn't, and I think that all of that has contributed
to reaching a resolution pre-indictment. All that said, we
disagree on the -- what is before the Court today, which is the
appropriate sentence.
With respect to Mr. Holcomb's recommendation of 30
months, your Honor, I take a step back and look at that in the
view of the sentencing guidelines. The 30-month recommendation
was made with the plea agreement, and in that plea agreement
the guidelines are contemplated at 37 to 46 months. So it's in
that way, it's seven-month reduction off the low end of the
guideline. We now have a guideline sentence of 33 to 41
months. And so I think, and I had conversations with him, and
I respect that he didn't grant my request, but I requested that
there be a lower recommendation based on the guideline and the
way that the court was going to come out. And nonetheless as
the Court had mentioned, I'm arguing for a variance based on
the guidelines being at what the Court calculated them today.
Mr. Holcomb gave three reasons for a below guideline
sentence, that there's a pre-indictment acceptance of
responsibility, Ms. Pierre's background. He also explained
that she, in his memo had explained she had relatively small
profit in relationship to the overall loss amount of the loans.
I agree with all three. I think there's a lot more reasons for
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 14 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
a reduction which I am now going to address.
Your Honor, when we look at her intent at the time of
the fraud in the spring/summer of 2020, which we would all
acknowledge was a very chaotic and unprecedented time in our
lifetimes of panic. The government initiated a program for
relief funds to keep businesses going and for appropriate
candidates to apply for those loans. Ms. Pierre at that time
was considered a resource within her community, within her
local community, within the friends who she had, and she
received inquiries from friends. She was a consultant at the
time about the PPP loans. This realtime communications which I
think reflect, albeit a misunderstanding, but reflect a desire
to an extent here to help people. And I want to just briefly
describe some of those. So there was a borrower from New York
who had aspirations to get her daycare center up and running
and functioning at a better level than what it was at. So she
sent text communications to Ms. Pierre while this is fresh,
while the pandemic loans are being made available. "I have the
strategies for both businesses, I just need the funding and to
build my team." She also had a -- she wanted to do an adult
home. She wanted to set that up as well. Ms. Pierre had
texted her back, "I have someone who you will love. I got you,
girl." And so she's showing -- there's an excitement here of
"I need money, I want to get businesses going, I have some
ideas, I haven't had money to get the businesses going in the
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 15 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
past." The correspondence continues, and this is the borrower,
"I can do so much with this business. I can purchase a
property, have residents live there, get paid by the state. I
can do home visits, delivery of meals, provide transportation."
Et cetera. There's a level, again, of excitement of "I'm an
entrepreneur, I want to do things. Can you help me get the
funds to do it?" Then there's a question about restrictions.
The borrower asks, "I have another question, can I use it
towards classes, a degree in my field related to my business?"
And Ms. Pierre says, "No, you can't." So she's showing her or
telling her there are restrictions that need to be abided by.
There's also a question from the borrower, "Can I use it
towards any other capital expenses such as marketing materials,
supplies for my daycare?" Ms. Pierre replies back, "Marketing
is not in the terms. It can't be used for that."
The borrower tries to connect another borrower with
Ms. Pierre. This person was a realtor. And the borrower --
this is in July of 2020, asks "Have you been in touch with this
other person?" And Ms. Pierre says, "Yes, good morning, I did
but unfortunately he won't be qualified because he's a realtor
and the loan won't cover his business." And the borrower asks,
"Okay, really, because he's a realtor?" And she says, "Yes,
investors can't qualify for the PPP loan. You can look it up,
and real estate investors aren't qualified."
So in realtime, these messages reflect a few things:
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 16 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
No. 1, she is in fact a resource. People are looking
to her to get money to build a business.
No. 2, she is connecting those people with Mr. Ford to
get loans.
No. 3, she's showing restrictions are in place. It's
not a, "this is the wild west, just get me whatever you want,
get me whoever you want, we'll put a loan in and we'll fudge
the numbers and get money." She is in fact rejecting a
borrower in the realtor that was told you can't do that.
And there's further correspondence between them, and
Ms. Pierre gives a breakdown, "to be forgiven, you need to be
using 60 percent of the loan for payroll, 20 for mortgage, 20
for loan and utilities. So she's showing that she has a level
of understanding that this is a loan program with restrictions.
Our problem is it was a loan program to keep businesses which
were already in existence functioning and continuing to
function. It wasn't a loan program to build a business from
scratch, so to speak, or to build a business and take it from a
next level. And we know that and we understand that. But what
I'm trying to articulate to the Court is, my client did not
look at this as a get-rich-quick scheme. My client is a
resourceful industrial -- industrious person who is trying to
help people, and she did in fact get loans for people, albeit
she should have been more diligent in the way she went about
it. The sort of bit of irony, your Honor, is the larger
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 17 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
picture with the COVID relief funds is the get rich quick
scheme, it happened for companies like Kabbage. These
financial technology companies that were paid to process the
loans and their realtime communications and they've been sued
by the government for a claim in hundreds of millions of
dollars. Their realtime communications show greed, they showed
no restrictions. And this is well documented in various
pleadings. There's messages from people at the Kabbage
Corporation which is now defunct. "Everyone will try and get
this ASAP. Dear God, we can make as much as we want. It's
literally ours to lose."
Kabbage Company, they made hundreds of millions of
dollars, paid them out to their investors, shut down the
company, declared bankruptcy, and there is, as Mr. Holcomb
noted in his argument, this was very easy to take advantage of,
because the commission that were being made by the financial
companies who were supposed to be the gatekeepers for us, U.S.
citizens, they were doing anything but being the gatekeepers.
They were processing loans here and there. I'll be the first
to say it doesn't constitute a defense. You can't submit a
false loan and just because the gatekeeper turns the other way,
it's still a crime. And I acknowledge that. But it's irony
that I wouldn't feel, I'd feel remiss if I didn't bring to the
Court's attention that I don't have a client who, unlike
others, saw it from the beginning, took full advantage of it,
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 18 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
and to no fault of anyone seemed to be reaping that.
When I look to Ms. Pierre's personal history, your
Honor, and I've mentioned this in my sentencing memorandum, and
I'll go in more detail here, she's a woman who has a lot of
admirable qualities. She has two young children, 11 and 13.
From the very beginning, she's raised them on her own. She
provides for them. She is a shoulder to lean on. She drives
them to practices, takes them to school. She, in their
letters, is a wonderful mother. And that personal attribute I
think warrants a departure from certainly the guidelines. I
think it warrants a sentencing recommendation that we're making
here today. More to that, your Honor, at this time that the
offense had been -- that she was committing the offense, she
was engaged to her -- what she had hoped to be her second
husband with a long marriage to go. Unfortunately, and this is
laid out in Ms. Sousa's presentence report, he was abusive
towards the children and it was a terribly disappointing and
short -lived marriage. It's relevant because the pressure she
had for eleven, ten years as a single mother figuring out how
do I get the kids what they needed, was exacerbated by her
fiancee at the time who was putting all the pressure on her
during the pandemic, you have to provide all the money we need
for this house. These are your kids, this is your family. He
said things to the kids he never should have said. And I'll
leave it at that. Point being, it's a mitigating fact with
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 19 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
respect to when she was doing this, and it goes back to
similarly those messages, what was her intent? What was her
mindset at the time of the offense? And it was one of she was
under significant pressure. And I think that that's relevant
in the Court's determination of what is the totality of the
person before you? Who is my client? Is she someone who was
looking and saw a scheme or was she someone who made a poor
decision while under tremendous pressure? And that's really
who she is.
I will address proportionality. And Mr. Holcomb and I
know the Court had noted, and I was here for Mr. Alexandre's
sentencing, and I appreciate the Court clarifying today what I
believe the Court's view to be with respect to Ms. Pierre.
Mr. Alexandre, we acknowledge came in -- he was a tax preparer.
Ms. Pierre was trying to learn taxation. She's an industrious
person in tax law, excuse me, and in how to do that. In any
event, they connected. And we acknowledge he got less
borrowers and ultimately was paid less. So we acknowledge
that. However, I do think the fact that she has no criminal
history level and he does have a criminal history background,
brings us closer to him and closes the gap. With respect to
Mr. Wallace, I think he's clearly more culpable and I think
there's several reasons why:
No. 1, he obtained $170,000 in PPP loans before my
client ever called him or ever had a conversation with him
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 20 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
about doing PPP loans. Those were fraudulent loans. He
applied for them, he obtained them.
No. 2, he was paid out roughly was $120,000 more in
commissions than Ms. Pierre got from the borrowers. So he, on
a loss level, his loss amount is higher than Ms. Pierre's.
No. 3, he controlled the process. These applications,
and I understand if Ms. Pierre doesn't bring the borrowers,
there is no applications to be filled out. He's the one
fudging the numbers. He's the one saying, you know, we're
going to put in for this one. I'm going to make this calculus
work out so that this loan comes out to this. It's solely in
his determination.
No. 3, noteworthy -- or No. 4, excuse me, the
government in its sentencing -- excuse me, in the plea
agreement with Mr. Ford, has agreed to recommend the low end of
the guidelines. We got a recommendation below the guidelines.
I think -- and I understand there are various factors that go
into the government's recommendation. I wasn't at all a party
to his negotiation with the government, that is with Mr. Ford,
but I think it's noteworthy for the Court's consideration.
That we earned, or in my view we earned a low below guidelines
recommendation, he did not. And for all of those reasons, he's
more culpable. And with respect to proportionality with PPP
fraud cases in the district, Mr. Holcomb was a prosecutor,
prosecuted the case U.S. V McIntyre, and that was a fraudulent
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 21 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
PPP loan of approximately $680,000. That's $680,000 is going
to Mr. McIntyre's pocket, it was a fraudulent loan, and he used
it but nothing other than for silly purposes. The point being,
that's over $250,000 more than ultimately what ended up being
or given to Ms. Pierre, and he ended up with a 24-month
sentence, which I think is, to look at that as a data point, is
very relevant, because we're looking at a smaller loss amount,
and Mr. Holcomb in his memorandum noted that part of the reason
for his recommendation is her relatively small profit compared
to the loss amount that the government ultimately issued in
loans. So I think that ties back to where I began, your Honor,
which is she wasn't looking at it as how much money do I get
into my pockets. There are a lot of borrowers here who are
getting loans and she may not get any commissions off of some
of the borrowers, because how that was done is a separate
matter. But in any event, I think that that's a relevant data
point for the Court.
Lastly, Judge, when we look at sort of, you know
moving forward and who is Ms. Pierre and what does her future
hold? I think it's -- her future holds bright things. And I
believe in earnest, as does Mr. Holcomb, that she has no risk
of re-offending. This was unique crime -- excuse me, this was
an offense done in a unique and unprecedented time in all of
our lifetimes, and it wasn't done with any sophistication. It
wasn't done with any prior planning. It was done in a very
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 22 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
unique and pressure-filled time for all of us, and Ms. Pierre
included even more so, I would submit. So she's not somebody
who is ever going to re-offend. She's never again going to be
a criminal defendant in any other courtroom in the United
States. But you don't just have my word from that, your Honor.
And I submitted a letter from her mental health counselor, with
which I think very aptly and if the Court would indulge me I
would like to just read portions of it that describe who
Ms. Pierre is and how this came to be in large part.
"Adiana's involvement in financial misconduct stems
from a complex interplay of factors including economic
insecurity, exacerbated by pressure from her husband to be the
dominant earner in their household during the COVID-19
pandemic. However, what sets Adiana apart is her
acknowledgement of personal responsibility and her pro-active
steps towards rehabilitation. Adiana's journey has not been
without its challenges. She has faced many of the consequences
of her actions with courage and honesty. She has shown genuine
remorse for her involvement in the financial misconduct which
she has been convicted. In our counseling sessions Adiana has
consistently expressed her regret for her past behavior and has
demonstrated a deep commitment to changing the mindset that led
her astray. One of the key factors in her transformation has
been a renewed faith and the support she found within her faith
community. Through her faith in God, Adiana has rediscovered a
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 23 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
source of strength and resilience that has helped her navigate
feelings of insecurity and uncertainty. She realized that she
was allowing the fear of going without and the fear of failure
to cloud her vision. Adiana understands that she was living by
fear and not by faith. She has embraced a new perspective on
the future recognizing that true security comes from living
with integrity and making choices that align with her values."
As I read that, your Honor, I think it encapsulates
three attributes that provide assurances to the Court that you
have a woman before you who will not be back in a courtroom and
will do good things.
One, is that it shows she's remorseful.
Two, it shows she's rehabilitated.
And three, it shows that she's recommitted to her
faith and her family and doing the right things.
So for all of those reasons, your Honor, we come at a
16-month recommendation. We respectfully and humbly request
that the Court impose 16 months. That would be 16 months that
will be difficult to say the least on Ms. Pierre and her loved
ones, but she understands the price to be paid and she
understands that she broke the law and there's consequences to
that. When weighing all the factors, we respectfully submit
that that's a sufficient sentence but not more than necessary
to achieve the goals of sentencing. With respect to certain
recommendations, we would request a facility in Florida, given
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 24 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
that's where her family predominantly -- extended family
resides. We'd also request a date be issued for her to be able
to report to a facility at an appropriate time.
With the Court's permission, I would ask that
Ms. Pierre be given an opportunity to speak.
THE COURT: Yes.
Take your time.
THE DEFENDANT: If I may find faith. Your Honor,
thank you. And, Mr. Holcomb, thank you. And, Michael, thank
you so much.
I am blessed to live in a great nation and I never
wanted to do anything against my government 'cause I honor
where I live and your Honor, and everybody that helped me
through this process. As I stated to my children, if you do
something wrong, you take full accountability. And I want to
take full accountability for what I have done to the U.S.
government. I know this is a lesson learned. I would not put
myself in this situation ever again. I just wanted to be a
resource, a reliable resource for my community. And in the
predominantly Haitian community if given an opportunity and
educated properly how to help those who need the resources, I
would love to be that piece, because going through this
18-month process, I realize that if I was fully educated
properly in how to do whatever it is with this -- these loans,
I wouldn't have hurt anybody else in the process, including
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 25 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
myself, your Honor. And so I ask for your favor and mercy with
the U.S. government and that is all I have to say.
Thank you, sir.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Pierre.
I'm going to take a short recess.
THE CLERK: All rise.
(The Honorable Court Exited.)
(The Honorable Court Stood in Recess.)
THE CLERK: All rise.
(The Honorable Court Entered.)
THE CLERK: Please be seated.
THE COURT: All right, thank you, everyone for your
patience. I want to thank both attorneys for your thoughtful
arguments and I appreciate your advocacy. I, I want to
acknowledge and thank Mr. Holcomb. It's a difficult job to
properly represent the government while also acknowledging the,
sort of the human cost or -- when it comes to sentencing. And
you did it in a sensitive way that I appreciated. I just
wanted to let you know.
So, Ms. Pierre, you don't have to stand. I also want
to acknowledge that it was probably not easy acknowledging and
admitting to the wrong -- I guess I'm at a bit of a loss of
words, because sentencing is so difficult for me, I think
generally, but there are a number of factors that make it
particularly more difficult here. I think -- as I said
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 26 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
earlier, I think -- I didn't fully comprehend where in the
scheme and where amongst the co-defendants you really fell in
terms of proportionality and culpability. I think I have a
better idea now. I also agree with the attorneys that this is
not the sort of case where we are concerned about a defendant
re-offending for all of the reasons your attorney stated
earlier. I agree, that I would be very, very surprised if you
end up in court again like this as a defendant. I also
recognize the immense difficulty of raising young children on
your own as a single parent. There are built-in stressors and
pressures and even as -- as part of a two-person team with
full-time jobs, it can be very difficult. But I also know from
personal experience what it's like to be a single parent
raising young kids, right? So I recognize that.
But given what the crimes are that you've admitted to,
there is also the recognition that some prison time is
necessary. And I'm -- this is where I'm having a real
difficult part, which is knowing that you have an 11-year-old
and a 13-year-old and you can't just say that my partner is
going to be there for them, and the impact that it's going to
have on your kids. It's one thing to punish the defendant
unintentionally, but necessarily the people who are close to
you, in this case your children, are the ones who are going to
get punished. So I really have to balance those things. And
we can debate, you know, whether it should be 16 months, 17
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 27 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
months, 18 months, 19 months, all the way to 30 months. And in
some way it seems arbitrary that I pick a number.
I'm going to impose a sentence of 17 months
incarceration followed by three years of supervised release and
restitution in the amount of $5,479,708. I am not going to
impose a fine given your financial status, but I have to impose
a mandatory special assessment in the amount of $100 each on
the two counts that you pleaded guilty to for a total of $200.
I believe this is an appropriate and reasonable
sentence, but not greater than necessary to effectuate all the
goals of sentencing.
So, Mr. DiStefano, before I formally impose the
sentence, did you want to be further heard?
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: The only request I had, your
Honor, with respect to a self-report date which I understand is
not objected to, as well as a facility in Florida, we would
just, for the record, object that -- well, no, that's all I
want to be heard on your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Holcomb?
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: There's no objection to
self-reporting, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right, thank you.
Ms. Pierre, if you would stand, please.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: So pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 28 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
of 1984 and having considered the sentencing factors enumerated
at Title 18, United States Code Section 3553(a), it is the
judgment of the Court that the defendant, Adiana Pierre, is
hereby committed to the custody of the Bureau of Prisons, to be
imprisoned for a term of 17 months as to each count to be
served concurrently.
Upon release from imprisonment, the defendant shall be
placed on supervised release for a term of three years as to
each count to run concurrently.
Within 72 hours of release of the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons, Ms. Pierre, you shall report in person to
the district to which you are released.
It is further ordered that the defendant shall make
restitution in the amount of $5,479,708. 2,013,793 of those
dollars to the U.S. Small Business Administration. $27,029 to
Lender Street. $3,238,896 to Cross River Bank.
Given the amount of this restitution that I'm ordering
and your financial status, Ms. Pierre, I will waive the
interest. Any payment made that is not payment in full, shall
be divided proportionately amongst the parties named.
The judgment that I will enter either later today or
tomorrow -- I guess it can't be tomorrow, I will try to get it
done today, will delineate all of the specific amounts, what
amounts are jointly and severally liable to the Cross River
Bank, the Small Business Administration, and to Lender Street.
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 29 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
Payment of the restitution will begin immediately and
shall be made according to the requirements of the Federal
Bureau of Prisons, Inmate Financial Responsibility Program
while the defendant is incarcerated. And according to the
Court order repayment schedule to the term of supervised
release.
All restitution payments shall be made to the Clerk
U.S. District Court for transfer to the identified victims.
Ms. Pierre, you will notify the U.S. attorney for this
district within 30 days of any change of mailing or residence
address that occurs while any portion of the restitution
remains unpaid.
As I mentioned, I'm not imposing a fine based on the
information before me. I find that you do not have the
financial ability to pay a fine in addition to the restitution.
The Court will grant the United States' motion for
entry of an order of forfeiture in the form of a personal money
judgment, and order the defendant to forfeit the sum of
$427,605.
The Court also grants the United States' motion for a
preliminary order of forfeiture. The Court finds that the
United States has established a requisite nexus between this
property, the motor vehicle, and the offenses of which the
defendant has been convicted.
I further order that you pay the mandatory special
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 30 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
assessment of $100 on each count for a total of $200, which
shall be due immediately.
So while you are on supervised release, Ms. Pierre,
there are some mandatory and standard and special conditions
that you need to abide by. I'm not going to repeat all of
those here, but you will be -- it will be reflected in writing
in the judgment that I will enter.
You may be seated.
As your attorney had requested in the judgment, I will
also include my recommendation that the Bureau of Prison
designate you to a facility somewhere in the Florida area. You
may already know this from your attorney, but my recommendation
is just that, a recommendation. The Bureau of Prisons will
make the final decision, but I will certainly make it known to
them that I hope that they will place you in a facility in
Florida.
And it is further ordered that the defendant
self-surrender at the institution designated by the Bureau of
Prisons.
Now, did you want a date?
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: Could I have one moment, your
Honor?
THE COURT: Sure.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: I don’t know if I should speak
with Ms. Sousa on a date.
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 31 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
PROBATION: Typically it's six weeks and she'll get a
notification in the mail of what facility. I don’t know, six
weeks from today is?
THE CLERK: July 19th.
PROBATION: July 19th.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: Is there any way we could have
the first week of August, your Honor, just with personal --
PROBATION: There's no objection from probation, your
Honor.
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: No objection.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: Thank you.
THE COURT: The last thing, Ms. Pierre, if you recall
months ago when I took your plea, there was a provision in the
plea agreement whereby you had agreed to waive certain
appellate rights. To the extent that any appellate rights
survive that appeal waiver, I want to notify you and to advise
you that you also have a right to appeal this sentence,
particularly if you think that the sentence was contrary to
law. If you're unable to pay the costs of appeal, you may ask
permission to have those costs waived and appeal without
paying. You must file a notice of appeal within 14 days of
entry of the judgment, and if you request it, the Clerk will
immediately prepare and file a notice of appeal on your behalf.
Okay?
Is there anything further?
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 32 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
33
ATTORNEY HOLCOMB: No, thank you, your Honor.
ATTORNEY DiSTEFANO: No, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
Ms. Pierre, I wish you and your family all the best.
I hope that you can put this behind you and that you would be
able to focus on your kids.
All right, good luck.
THE CLERK: All rise.
(The Honorable Court Exited.)
(Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the Court Stood in Recess.)
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 33 of 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
C E R T I F I C A T E
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS )
I, Catherine L. Zelinski, certify that the foregoing
is a true and accurate transcription of my stenographic notes
from the record of proceedings taken Friday, June 7, 2024, in
the above-entitled matter to the best of my skill and ability.
/s/ Catherine L. Zelinski
Catherine L. Zelinski, RPR, CRC _8/13/2024
Official Court Reporter
Date
Case 1:24-cr-10007-MJJ Document 86 Filed 08/13/24 Page 34 of 34File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.265691.86.0.pdf
- Size
- 338,554 bytes
- SHA-256
- 449da9fa89f201f193fba438aee418d94b5f37b85ef43d6b952dbd2d76a86abb
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.mad.265691.86.0.pdf
- Original
- PACER (login required)