Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Blaise (Dkt. 61, S.D. Fla.)

Summary

The government's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Alexander Blaise and Dumarsais Blaise Jr., Case No. 22-60110-CR, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered April 5, 2023 as Document 61. It states that the offense of conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1349 stems from the defendants' role in applying for and obtaining $1,609,628 in fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program loans, and seeks restitution of that amount. It calculates advisory Guidelines ranges of 41-51 months for A. Blaise and 51-63 months for D. Blaise, and recommends terms of imprisonment within those ranges. It runs 15 pages.

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

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 1 of 15




                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
                               CASE NO. 22-60110-CR-SINGHAL

  UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

  vs.

  ALEXANDER BLAISE and
  DUMARSAIS BLAISE JR.,

               Defendants.
  _______________________________________/

                      GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

         The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this

  Sentencing Memorandum as to Defendants Alexander Blaise (“A. Blaise”) and Dumarsais Blaise

  (“D. Blaise”) (together the “Defendants”). The Defendants are scheduled for sentencing on April

  10, 2023 for their respective convictions by guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit wire

  fraud, in violation of Title 18, United State Code, Sections 1349. The offense stems from the

  Defendants’ role in applying for and obtaining $1,609,628 in fraudulent Paycheck Protection

  Program (“PPP”) loans.

         For the reasons set forth below, the United States respectfully recommends that the Court

  sentence the Defendants to terms of imprisonment within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines

  ranges. The United States further requests that these terms each be followed by three years of

  supervised release.1 The sentences recommended by the United States will provide punishment

  that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to accomplish the purposes of sentencing set forth



  1
         The United States is also seeking restitution of $1,609,628 consistent with the Plea
  Agreements [ECF Nos. 45 ¶15 and 49 ¶15]. The Defendants have also agreed to pay special
  assessments of $100 [ECF Nos. 45 ¶ 5 and 49 ¶ 5].

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 2 of 15




  in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

  I.      BACKGROUND

         A.      The CARES Act
         In March 2020, in response to the many challenges presented by the pandemic, Congress

  passed the CARES ACT, Pub. L. 116-136, which created the Paycheck Protection Program

  (“PPP”).    The PPP authorized $349 billion in forgivable loans to small businesses to be used for

  payroll, mortgage interest, rent/lease payments, or utilities. In April 2020, Congress authorized

  an additional $310 billion for PPP funding.        These funds were designed to address the

  unprecedented crisis facing Americans—especially business owners and their employees, whose

  livelihoods were threatened by the public health emergency. PPP funds were designed as a lifeline.

         The program was designed to provide funds quickly and easily to qualifying individuals.

  PPP loans were distributed by banks who had existing relationships with many of the applicants.

  To apply, individuals submitted an application to a participating financial institution along with

  supporting documentation as to the business’s payroll expenses. The supporting documentation

  requirement was minimal and could be satisfied with one years’ worth of the company’s tax

  records. If a PPP loan application was approved, the participating financial institution funded the

  PPP loan using its own monies, which were 100% guaranteed by the Small Business

  Administration (“SBA”).

         B.      Overview of the Defendants’ Conduct

         A more detailed recitation of the facts relating to the scheme are detailed in the Indictment

  [ECF No. 1], the Defendants’ factual proffer statements [ECF Nos. 46 and 50], and the final

  Presentence Investigation Reports disclosed by the United States Probation Office (“Probation”)

  on April 3, 2023 [ECF Nos. 58 and 59] (the “PSRs”).
                                                2

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 3 of 15




         Beginning in and around April 2020 through in or around at least August 2020, the

  Defendants conspired to submit three false and fraudulent PPP loan applications for three sham

  companies: One of One LLC (“One of One”), Appetite for Everything Inc. (“Appetite”), and Acute

  Care Coordinating Systems PA (“ACCS”). In total, as part of the conspiracy, the Defendants

  fraudulently obtained $1,609,628, which is the loss figure Probation properly applied in the PSRs.

         In and around April 2020, D. Blaise and Anthony Wallace (“Wallace”) discussed the

  requirements of the PPP program. Around the same time, the Defendants agreed to help Wallace

  submit PPP loan applications, which all three contemplated would contain false statements and

  would be supported by false documentation. As part of the agreement, the Defendants would

  receive a portion of any PPP loan proceeds that Wallace received through the scheme.

         On or about May 4, 2020, D. Blaise sent copies of a fake 2019 IRS Form W3 for ACCS to

  A. Blaise. Also, on or about May 4, 2020, A. Blaise sent copies of several fake 2019 IRS Form

  W3s to Wallace via email. The forms were sent as part of the conspiracy in anticipation of

  submitting false PPP loan applications. The document properties, metadata, associated with the

  IRS Form W3 that A. Blaise received from D. Blaise for ACCS showed that D. Blaise created and

  revised the form on or about May 4, 2020.

         On or about May 8, 2020, the Defendants assisted Wallace in submitting an electronic PPP

  loan application requesting approximately $626,367 for One of One. On or about May 9, 2020,

  the Defendants also assisted Wallace in submitting an electronic PPP loan application requesting

  $626,776 for Appetite. On or about May 11, 2020, the Defendants submitted an electronic PPP

  loan application requesting $356,485 for ACCS. Two of these three PPP loan applications—for

  ACCS and Appetite—included the fake IRS Form W3s the conspirators exchanged via email on


                                                  3

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 4 of 15




  May 4, 2020.2 All three loan applications contained a number of false statements and supporting

  tax documents that were never filed with the IRS. Further, none of the three companies reported

  any employees or revenue to the Florida Department of Revenue as required by law. Nonetheless,

  the three PPP loan applications for One of One, Appetite, and ACCS induced lenders to deposit

  PPP loan proceeds into bank accounts controlled by Wallace, Wallace, and A. Blaise, respectively.

         Bank records showed that between on or about May 19, 2020, and on or about July 16,

  2020, both A. Blaise and Wallace transferred the majority of the proceeds of these three PPP loans

  to a bank account D. Blaise controlled in the name of his company, D&C Tax City. Specifically,

  A. Blaise transferred approximately $270,000 and Wallace transferred approximately $900,000.

  D. Blaise then caused some of these funds to be transmitted back to A. Blaise and Wallace,

  sometimes to accounts held jointly between A. Blaise and others, while retaining a portion of the

  funds for himself.

         The conspirators then engaged in a scheme to obscure the nature of these payments D.

  Blaise made back to A. Blaise and Wallace. On or about August 11, 2020, D. Blaise emailed

  Wallace a fake “Employee Payment Summary Report” purporting to list “employees” and pay for

  One of One associated with the May 8, 2020 PPP loan application. The Defendants were listed as

  employees on this report, despite having never been employed by One of One. On or about August

  28, 2020, Wallace received a fake “Employee Payment Summary Report” for Appetite associated

  with the May 9, 2020 PPP loan application, from an email account associated with D&C Tax City.

  The sender copied D. Blaise’s personal email address. The Defendants were listed as employees




  2
   A fourth unfunded PPP loan application for One for One included a fake IRS Form W3 that A.
  Blaise emailed to Wallace on May 4, 2020.
                                                4

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 5 of 15




  on this report, despite having never been employed by Appetite.

         Similarly, on or about May 21, 2020, D. Blaise emailed A. Blaise a fake “Employee

  Payment Summary Report” purporting to list “employees” and pay for ACCS associated with the

  May 11, 2020 PPP loan application,. The Defendants were listed as employees on this report. On

  or about August 11, 2020, A. Blaise received another fake “Employee Payment Summary Report”

  for ACCS from D. Blaise’s personal email address. D. Blaise and A. Blaise were listed as

  employees on this report as well. Neither D. Blaise nor A. Blaise ever worked for ACCS, which,

  as noted, conducted no substantive business.

  II.    PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On May 19, 2022, the Defendants were charged by Indictment with conspiracy to commit

  wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 (Count One), wire fraud, in

  violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 (Counts Two through Four), conspiracy

  to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h)(Count

  Five), money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957 (Count 6), and

  money laundering in violation of United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) (Counts Seven

  through Ten). [ECF No. 1]. The Defendants each pleaded guilty to Count One of the Indictment

  pursuant to written plea agreements on January 4, 2023. [ECF Nos. 44 and 48]. Sentencing is

  scheduled for April 10, 2023.

  III.   SENTENCING GUIDELINES CALCULATIONS

         As explained below, the United States submits that A. Blaise’s Total Offense Level is 22

  and D. Blaise’s Total Offense Level is 24. At Criminal History Category I, this produces the

  respective advisory Guidelines range of 41-51 months of imprisonment for A. Blaise and 51-63


                                                  5

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 6 of 15




  months of imprisonment for D. Blaise.

         A.     The PSR Correctly Computes the Offense Level

         As set forth in the PSR, Probation computes the Total Offense Level for A. Blaise at 22

  [ECF No. 58 ¶¶ 46-53] and for D. Blaise at 24 [ECF No. 59 ¶¶ 47-55]. The United States concurs

  with the Offense Level computation in the PSR, which is as follows:

  A. Blaise:

   Base Offense Level, § 2B1.1(a)(1)                                                  7

   Loss greater than $1,500,000 but less than $3,500,000, § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)            16

   Sophisticated Means, § 2B1.1(b)(10)                                                2

   Acceptance of Responsibility and Timely Notification § 3E1.1(a) and (b)            (3)

   Total Offense Level                                                                22


  D. Blaise:

   Base Offense Level, § 2B1.1(a)(1)                                                  7

   Loss greater than $1,500,000 but less than $3,500,000, § 2B1.1(b)(1)(I)            16

   Organizer/Leader, § 3B1.1(c)                                                       2

   Sophisticated Means, § 2B1.1(b)(10)                                                2

   Acceptance of Responsibility and Timely Notification § 3E1.1(a) and (b)            (3)

   Total Offense Level                                                                24


         Defendants object to the calculation of the Guidelines in two respects. First, they object to

  the calculation of the loss amount pursuant to Section 2B1.1(b)(1)(I). Second, they object to the

  application of the sophisticated means enhancement pursuant to Section 2B1.1(b)(10). Separately,


                                                  6

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 7 of 15




  D. Blaise also objects to the application of the organizer/leader enhancement pursuant to 3B1.1(c).

  The government disagrees as further explained below.

         B. The Correct Loss Amount is Greater than $1,500,000

         The Defendants worked together with Wallace in applying for the three fraudulent PPP

  loans. The acts of each member of the conspiracy were reasonably foreseeable. Under the

  circumstances, both Defendants knew that their actions of creating fake tax documents and causing

  these documents to be submitted with the associated fraudulent applications would likely result in

  disbursement of PPP proceeds. This knowledge is further buttressed by the systematic laundering,

  use, and attempt at hiding the source of the funds after the proceeds were disbursed. See United

  States v. Huff, 609 F.3d 1240 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming district court’s decision to use a loss

  amount including the fraud of co-conspirators in calculating sentencing guidelines). In doing so,

  the Huff court reiterated U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(A) and (B) in opining that the amount of loss is

  the greater of the value of payment, the benefit received or to be received in return for the payment,

  or the loss to the government for the offense. Thus, a defendant convicted for conspiracy to commit

  wire fraud is liable for (1) all acts by others that he aided and abetted; and (2) the acts of his co-

  conspirators that were reasonably foreseeable to him and thus, jointly undertaken criminal activity.

  See United States v. Rodriguez, 751 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming that the proper

  calculation of the loss amount for the guidelines requires consideration of “all relevant conduct,”

  not merely charged conduct). The Rodriguez court further explained relevant conduct to include

  “all acts and omissions…that were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan

  as the offense of conviction”, and a participant in a conspiracy may thus be held “responsible for

  the losses resulting from the foreseeable acts of the co-conspirators in furtherance of the


                                                    7

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 8 of 15




  conspiracy”. Id.; see also United States v. Mateos, 623 F.3d 1350, 1370 (11th Cir. 2010) (affirming

  the use of reasonable foreseeable acts of co-conspirators that were in furtherance of the conspiracy

  in calculating the appropriate loss amount enhancement). Accordingly, the appropriate loss amount

  here includes the foreseeable acts of A. Blaise, D. Blaise, and Wallace, which resulted in the

  disbursement of $1,609,628.

         C. The Sophisticated Means Enhancement Applies

         The Defendants object to the application of the sophisticated means enhancement, arguing

  that the enhancement does not apply to their specific set of facts. This argument is misplaced,

  however, because of the steps that these Defendants took to further the conspiracy which are

  recognized to merit a sophisticated means enhancement. See United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d

  1322, 1332 (11th Cir. 2007) (affirming application of sophisticated means enhancement where the

  defendant used the names of nonexistent businesses and other people’s addresses to circumvent a

  company’s policy of not shipping products to customers whose accounts were more than 30 days

  in arrears); United States v. Taylor, 652 F. App’x 902, 911 (11th Cir. 2016) (affirming

  enhancement where defendant used fake case citations to sneak identifying information past prison

  mail screeners and sent it to co-conspirator using the co-conspirator’s various aliases). The PPP

  applications included fabricated information and supporting documents. The Defendants worked

  together to create and use fake IRS tax documents and fake employee payroll reports in support of

  their fraudulent PPP applications. Once the funds were received, the Defendants systematically

  worked together to transfer the funds from the depository account to an account controlled by D.

  Blaise, who then, with the assistance of A. Blaise, transferred funds back to accounts under the

  guise of payroll payments. Bank records show that some of the payments were disguised as


                                                   8

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 9 of 15




  payments to employees who did not exist and were never associated the Defendants.

         The Defendants took these steps as part of a complex effort to conceal their involvement

  in the scheme and prevent law enforcement from uncovering the fraud, supporting application of

  the sophisticated means enhancement. See United States v. Clum, 607 F. App’x 922, 930 (11th

  Cir. 2015) (upholding enhancement where “defendants took substantial steps to conceal their

  activities, their identities, and their proceeds from their scheme”); United States v. Williams, 509

  F. App’x 941, 943 (11th Cir. 2013) (affirming district court finding “that ‘the totality of the

  scheme’ was sophisticated, considering both Williams’s use of multiple aliases, credit cards, email

  accounts, IP addresses and shipping addresses, and the sophistication required to gain access to

  victims’ accounts”). In short, this was not simply a case in which the Defendants falsely told the

  banks an incorrect name. The Defendants went far beyond that: they inflated the figures listed on

  the applications and supporting documents, fabricated the documents associated with the

  applications, utilized complex financial transactions to hide the source of the funds, and created

  fake payroll documents to legitimize the fake applications and business.

         D. Organizer/Leader Enhancement Applies for D. Blaise

         D. Blaise objects to the application of the Organizer/Leader enhancement, claiming that he

  was not the mastermind of this conspiracy. However, the enhancement is appropriate because the

  evidence shows that he was leading and directing the core conduct in the conspiracy. D. Blaise

  created the fraudulent document provided for the ACCS application and sent it to A. Blaise. When

  the funds were obtained, consistent with their agreement, A. Blaise and Wallace transferred a

  majority of the proceeds to an account in which D. Blaise was the sole signatory. From this

  account, and while keeping a portion of the proceeds for himself, D. Blaise systematically


                                                   9

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 10 of 15




   transferred payments back to A. Blaise and Wallace in order to make the payments appear as

   payroll. These transfers often included names of individuals not associated with any of the

   companies as the recipient of the funds, even though the funds were being transferred to accounts

   of A. Blaise, Wallace, or their assignees. After the funds were transferred, D. Blaise created fake

   payroll documents and sent them to both A. Blaise and Wallace, listing himself as an employee at

   all of the associated companies and one of the many recipient of payroll from said companies, all

   in an attempt to cover up the laundering of the proceeds. These facts support application of the

   Leader/Organizer enhancement. See United States v. Mayer, 679 F. App’x 895 (11th Cir. 2017)

   (affirming district court findings application of the organizer enhancement based on the

   defendant’s role in signing the false documents); United States v. Williams, 527 F.3d 1235 (11th

   Cir. 2008) (the court opined that an organizer/leader enhancement is appropriate if found by a

   preponderance of evidence that the defendant was criminally responsible for the wire fraud or

   federal funds theft and the defendant exerted some degree of control, leadership or influence);

   United States v. Holland 22 F.3d 1040 (11th Cir. 1994) (the court opined that in determining

   whether to apply a 3B1.1 enhancement, a court is instructed to consider “all acts or omissions ‘that

   were part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.’”).

   Consequently, D. Blaise’s actions in the wire fraud scheme was not only as a facilitator, by creating

   the fake employee payroll reports to cover up the illegitimate source of the funds, but also one of

   leader and organizer by creating the fake documents that were used for the applications and

   laundering the proceeds after the funds were transferred to his account.

   IV.    CONSIDERATION OF SENTENCING FACTORS UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3553(A)

          Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), enumerates several factors that the Court


                                                    10

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 11 of 15




   shall consider in sentencing a defendant. As addressed in turn below, the 3553(a) factors relevant

   to the Defendants support the sentence recommended by the United States.

          A.      Nature and Circumstances of the Office

          The Defendants’ criminal conduct in this case is serious as they fraudulently sought to

   obtain pandemic-related loans that were supposed to be emergency and disaster relief to those

   businesses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic spread

   across the country causing illness, death and economic distress, the government created PPP loans

   to help small business owners and their employees whose livelihoods were jeopardized. The

   COVID-19 pandemic was an extraordinarily serious public health crisis, and it had profound

   economic ramifications. The Defendants took advantage of the program by facilitating the prolific

   submission of false applications claiming to have employees and payroll that did not exist. Those

   applications were supported by false tax forms. The Defendants’ exploitation of the crisis not only

   cost the government, the SBA, and affiliated lenders time and money, but also diverted funds that

   could have been used the way PPP loans were intended: to assist struggling businesses and to keep

   people employed. Instead, The Defendants took money that was earmarked for legitimate small

   businesses and dissipated it for their own personal enrichment.

          Furthermore, the Defendants fraud was not an impulsive one-off; they applied for three

   different loans to which they knew they were not entitled, and knowingly submitted false

   documents attesting to these fraudulent companies, payroll expenses, tax payments, and other

   financial information. As such, the Defendants’ conduct, which through the diversion of relief

   money caused direct harm to a vulnerable public, warrants a meaningful custodial sentence.




                                                   11

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 12 of 15




           B.    Need for the Sentence to Afford Adequate Deterrence to Criminal Conduct
           and Protect the Public from Further Crimes of the Defendant

           A significant sentence is also necessary to provide general deterrence. The Defendants’

   actions warrant commensurately significant consequences, both due to the seriousness of the

   offense and as a general deterrent to send a message to the broader public that taking advantage of

   a national emergency to enrich oneself at the public expense will result in serious consequences.

   Given that criminal conduct like that at issue here is typically more difficult to detect and prosecute

   than sudden crimes of passion or opportunity, there is a greater need for general deterrence. The

   Eleventh Circuit has explicitly stated that “general deterrence is an important factor in white-collar

   cases, where the motivation is greed.” United States v. Hayes, 762 F.3d 1300, 1308 (11th Cir.

   2014). This case was motivated by greed at time when millions of Americans were suffering from

   the economic impact of a global pandemic. As the pandemic spread, so too did fraud related to

   the PPP program and other programs designed to provide critical economic assistance, especially

   in the Southern District of Florida. The government’s recommended sentence will send a clear

   message to the Defendants and other offenders that there are serious consequences for defrauding

   government pandemic relief programs. The Defendants’ sentence will serve as a warning and

   deterrent to others inclined to exploit pandemic relief programs. See, e.g., United States v. Martin,

   455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Heffernan, 43 F.3d 1144, 1149 (7th Cir.

   1994) (“Considerations of (general) deterrence argue for punishing more heavily those offenses

   that either are lucrative or are difficult to detect and punish, since both attributes go to increase the

   expected benefits of a crime and hence the punishment required to deter it.”).




                                                      12

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 13 of 15




          C.      Need for the Sentence to Avoid Unwarranted Sentencing Disparities

          The sentence recommended by the United States will not create an unwarranted sentencing

   disparity. There are two relevant points of comparison to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities:

   sentences associated with others convicted of PPP related fraud, and the sentence of Wallace, the

   co-conspirator in this case. Judges of this Court and of other districts have imposed sentences with

   significant terms of imprisonment for offenses related to PPP fraud. See, e.g., United States v.

   Joselin, Case No. 22-60028-CR-Dimitrouleas (S.D. Fla. Nov. 2, 2022) (sentencing defendant to

   84 months’ imprisonment following trial for numerous PPP fraud offenses amounting to about

   $1.95 million in intended loss); United States v. Kralievits, Case No. 21-20157-CR-Altonaga (S.D.

   Fla. June 30, 2021) (sentencing cooperating defendant to 19-month term of imprisonment

   (following reduction pursuant to 5K1.1) in connection with two fraudulent PPP loans totaling

   approximately $824,750); United States v. Hines, Case No. 21-20011-CR-Cooke (S.D. Fla. May

   12, 2021) (imposing 78-month term of imprisonment for defendant responsible for a loss of $3.9

   million resulting from multiple fraudulent PPP loans); United States v. Tubbs, 20-00193-CR-

   Miller (E.D. Ark.) (imposing 41-month term of imprisonment for defendant responsible for loss

   of $1.9 million resulting from two fraudulent PPP loans).

          The co-conspirator in this scheme, Wallace, has a pending sentencing date of May 18,

   2023. At that time, the United States will also be requesting a sentence within the applicable

   Guidelines range.




   V.     RESTITUTION AND FORFEITURE

          Restitution is mandatory in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). As set forth in

                                                   13

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 14 of 15




   the Plea Agreements [ECF Nos. 45 and 49 ¶ 15], it is the government’s position that the Defendants

   owe restitution in the amount of $1,609,628. Restitution is owed joint and severally between the

   Defendants and Wallace, who was charged in United States v. Wallace, 22-CR-60113-AHS. It is

   well established that forfeiture and restitution are separate and distinct parts of a defendant’s

   sentence that serve different purposes, and that they both are mandatory. As a result, the

   government could seek forfeiture as well.

                                           CONCLUSION

          For the forgoing reasons, the United States respectfully recommends that the Court

   sentence the Defendants to terms of imprisonment within the applicable Sentencing Guidelines

   ranges. The United States further requests the Court to sentence each Defendant to a term of

   supervised release of three (3) years. The United States also requests that the Court order

   restitution and a special assessment, consistent with the Plea Agreements [ECF Nos. 45 and 49].


           Respectfully Submitted,

           MARKENZY LAPOINTE                                      GLENN S. LEON
           UNITED STATES ATTORNEY                                 CHIEF, FRAUD SECTION


    By:    /s/ Kiran Bhat                                  By:     /s/ Edward E. Emokpae
           KIRAN BHAT                                              EDWARD E. EMOKPAE
           Assistant United States Attorney                        Trial Attorney, Fraud Section
           Fla. Bar NO. 1008370                                    U.S. Department of Justice
           400 North Miami Avenue                                  1400 New York Ave NW
           Miami, FL 33131                                         Washington, DC 20530
           Tel: (305) 961-9103                                     Tel: (202) 616-2551
           Fax: (954) 695-0651                                     Fax: (202) 514-3708
           kiran.bhat@usdoj.gov                                    Edward.Emokpae@usdoj.gov




                                                  14

Case 0:22-cr-60110-AHS Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/05/2023 Page 15 of 15




                                CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I HEREBY CERTIFY that on April 5, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the

   Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.



                                                   /s/ Edward E. Emokpae
                                                   Trial Attorney




                                              15

File and source

File

61.pdf

Size

196,108 bytes

SHA-256

034a631abbd608b23efb43e1cbdd9eab93b3a77432ba469f6ad9a029316172c0

Our copy

61.pdf