Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Arashio Harris (S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · No. 1:23-cr-20295-CMA · Doc. 23 · 2023-10-23 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
Case No. 23-20295-Cr-ALTONAGA/DAMIAN 
      
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
ARASHIO HARRIS, 
 
Defendant. 
_________________________________/ 
 
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S  
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DOWNWARD 
VARIANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING GUIDELINES AND 
RECOMMENDED SENTENCE (DE 18)  
 
COMES NOW the United States, by and through the undersigned Assistant United 
States Attorney, and files this Response to defendant Arashio Harris’ Sentencing 
Memorandum in Support of Motion for Downward Variance from the United States 
Sentencing Guidelines and Recommended Sentence, stating as follows: 
Factual Background and Procedural History 
The facts of this case are laid out in the Stipulated Factual Basis (DE 11) the 
defendant admitted to at his change of plea and in the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report 
(“PSR”) (DE 20).  This Response readopts and incorporates those facts herein, and will 
focus solely on those that government believes are most relevant to the sentencing 
determination this Court must make.  
Throughout the year-long period of time that the defendant was engaged in his 
fraudulent activity, he was employed by the Miami-Dade Corrections and Rehabilitation 
Department (“MDCRD”) as a Correctional Sergeant, earning approximately $9,200 per 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 1 of 9

2 
 
month.  PSR at ¶¶ 16, 75; DE 11 at 1.  At the same time, the defendant was the owner 
and president of both The Good Family Property Solutions Inc. (“Good Family”) and Flying 
Lions LLC (“Flying Lions”), which were created under Nevada law by the defendant in 
2015 and subsequently registered with the State of Florida.  PSR at ¶¶ 76, 77; DE 11 at 
1.  It was these two entities that the defendant used to fraudulently obtain multiple large 
COVID-19 relief loans while he was still employed full-time with MDCRD. 
In particular, the defendant, through Good Family, submitted a fraudulent 
application directly to the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) seeking and obtaining 
an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) and an EIDL advance, which together totaled 
$23,500.  PSR at ¶ 22; DE 11 at 5-6.  He also submitted fraudulent applications in the 
name of Good Family for two Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans, allowing him 
to fraudulently obtain a first draw PPP loan of approximately $129,275 in July 2020, and 
a second draw PPP loan of $129,276 in April 2021.  PSR at ¶¶ 24- 27; DE 11 at 7-8.  
Finally, using Flying Lions, he fraudulently applied for and obtained from the SBA an EIDL 
of approximately $150,000.  PSR at ¶ 23; DE 11 at 6.   
These fraudulent applications contained numerous false statements, including 
misrepresentations about the companies’ gross revenues, monthly payroll, and numbers 
of employees, all designed to cause the SBA and the private lenders to approve the loan 
applications and provide Harris’ companies with large relief loans.  As a result of these 
four fraudulent applications, the defendant obtained approximately $258,551 in PPP loan 
proceeds and approximately $173,500 in EIDL funding, for a total of approximately 
$432,051 in COVID-relief that he was not entitled to.  
The Advisory Sentencing Guidelines Range 
Under the current post-Booker sentencing regime, this Court is required to first 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 2 of 9

3 
 
compute an advisory Guidelines range, before it applies the 18 U.S.C. '3553(a) factors 
to determine the defendant=s ultimate sentence.  See United States v. Crawford, 407 
F.3d 1174, 1178 (11th Cir. 2005).  The PSR computed the Total Offense Level to be 
level 16, with the defendant being in Criminal History Category I, leading to an advisory 
Guidelines sentencing range of 21-27 months (PSR at ¶¶ 41, 44, 89).  This is the same 
pre-variance advisory Guidelines sentencing range that the government and the 
defendant agreed to jointly recommend to the Court as part of the Plea Agreement.  DE 
10 at ¶ 7.    
The §3553(a) Factors and Defendant’s Request for a Downward Variance 
Relying on the § 3553(a) factors, the defendant asks this Court to vary downward 
and impose a sentence of twelve (12) months of home confinement along with community 
service.  DE 18 at 1.  In his Motion, the defendant focuses primarily on: his dedication 
to his family; his community service efforts; his faith; and his health issues.  DE 18 at 1-
4.  However, the defendant today filed, and the Court granted, a separate unopposed 
Zero-Point Offender Motion seeking a two-level downward variance based on the fact 
that a Zero-Point Offenders two-level downward adjustment will become effective on 
November 1, 2023.1  DE 21, 22.  
The Plea Agreement addresses the variance issue, with the government 
specifically agreeing to not oppose the defendant’s request for a two-level downward 
variance, based on the Zero-Point Offender amendment, to an advisory Guidelines range 
of 15-21 months incarceration in exchange for the defendant expressly agreeing not to 
later seek a further downward variance based on that provision once it becomes effective 
 
1 The downward adjustment will be found at USSG § 4C1.1. 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 3 of 9

 
4 
 
on November 1, 2023.  However, the same paragraph of the Plea Agreement also 
expressly stated that while the government would not oppose a two-level variance down 
to a 15-21 month advisory sentencing range to reflect the upcoming Guidelines 
amendment, the government “remain[ed] free to oppose a variance sought on any other 
grounds.”  DE 10 at ¶ 9.   
In light of the Court having now granted the two-level variance requested in DE 21, 
which the government believes results in an advisory Guidelines level 14 sentencing 
range of 15-21 months, the government will use that advisory Guidelines range as the 
starting point for its argument regarding the § 3553(a) factors.  Considering all the facts 
and circumstances of this case and this defendant in light of the § 3553(a) factors, the 
government, for the reasons explained below, opposes the defendant’s request for a non-
incarceration sentence of 12 months home confinement, and instead respectfully 
suggests that the reasonable, necessary, and appropriate sentence in this case should 
be 15 months imprisonment.  
 
Section 3553(a)(1) – The Nature of Defendant’s Offense 
The first part of §3553(a)(1) focuses on the nature and circumstances of the 
offense committed.  As set out in the Information (DE: 1), Stipulated Factual Basis (DE: 
11), and PSR, the defendant’s offense spanned more than one year and involved using 
entities to fraudulently apply for and receive two PPP loans as well as two EIDLs and one 
EIDL advance, thereby obtaining approximately $432,000 in COVID-19 relief funds that 
he was not entitled to.   
The programs providing these relief funds were designed to assist actual small 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 4 of 9

 
5 
 
business owners and their employees who were trying to deal with the real financial 
hardships and business disruptions caused to them by the pandemic.  The EIDLs were 
funded and paid directly by the SBA, while the PPP loans from private lenders were 
guaranteed by the SBA, and in this case, the SBA reimbursed the lenders in full pursuant 
to the terms of that guarantee program.  Abusing these well-intended COVID-related 
emergency relief programs by fraudulently obtaining multiple large loans to which he was 
not entitled clearly was a serious offense.  
Here, the seriousness of the defendant’s criminal conduct is enhanced not only by 
the fact that the defendant obtained multiple loans, but also by the fact that he was a 
State of Florida certified Miami-Dade Correctional Sergeant.  The fact that the defendant 
was empowered and relied upon to play an important role in the criminal justice and 
rehabilitation system and instead chose to break the law for personal enrichment is a 
consideration that supports the government’s request.  Moreover, unlike those 
individuals whose employment or income was lost or seriously impacted by the pandemic, 
the defendant’s full-time employment as an MDCRD Sergeant was unaffected by the 
pandemic and so this criminal activity cannot be minimized or excused as an aberrational 
response to an unexpected financial hardship caused by the COVID-19 crisis.2   
 
Section 3553(a)(1) – The Defendant’s History and Characteristics 
The second part of §3553(a)(1) focuses on the history and characteristics of the 
 
2 For example, the PSR reflects that the defendant purchased a 2020 Ford F150 pickup truck for 
$58,547 on May 27, 2020.  PSR at ¶ 81.  This was after he applied for the Good Family EIDL 
and received the $9,000 EIDL advance and only days before he received the $14,500 in EIDL 
proceeds.  
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 5 of 9

 
6 
 
defendant.  As reflected in the PSR, prior to engaging in the COVID-relief fraud to which 
he pled guilty, the defendant appears to have been a productive law-abiding citizen 
throughout his life.  PSR at ¶¶ 42-48, 68-75.  While this history does not excuse his 
serious crime, it is a factor to consider in setting the ultimate sentence, and was taken 
into account by the government in deciding to not oppose a limited two-level variance 
based on the soon-to-be-effective Zero-Point Offender adjustment and to recommend a 
sentence at the low end of the 15-21 advisory Guidelines sentencing range.  Similarly, it 
should be a factor in the defendant’s favor that he voluntary met with the agents early in 
the investigation, and after being notified of his target status, retained counsel to resolve 
the matter by pleading guilty for his crime.   
The defendant also describes the numerous community service activities he 
engages in as well as those he intends to continue in the future.  DE 18 at 2-3.  These 
include an emphasis on helping young people avoid wrong choices.  While these 
certainly are admirable activities, they cannot erase the fact that while he was counseling 
youth to avoid crime, he was committing his own crime, that being a more than one year-
long fraud scheme that obtained $432,000 in COVID relief funds to which he was not 
entitled. 
 
Section 3553(a)(2)  
Section 3553(a)(2) is aimed at ensuring that the sentence imposed serves the 
various purposes stated in subparts (A) – (D), including imposing a sentence that reflects 
the seriousness of the offense and provides just punishment and promotes respect for 
the law, provides adequate deterrence, protects the public from a risk of recidivism, and 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 6 of 9

 
7 
 
provides the defendant with needed medical care in the most effective manner.  
The undisputed seriousness of the defendant’s criminal activity has already been 
discussed above.  In light of that seriousness, the government believes that a crime of 
this nature should not merely result in home confinement and community service.  
Instead, it should include incarceration to truly provide just punishment and promote the 
needed respect for the law where the defendant repeatedly defrauded government relief 
programs set up to try to save small businesses and the jobs they provide.  
Moreover, while the risk of recidivism appears low for this defendant, the 
government does not agree that a sentence of home confinement provides adequate 
deterrence to criminal conduct by others.  Because potential offenders may consider the 
chance of ever being caught to be very low, if they see that those caught are not being 
imprisoned, but rather are only receiving home confinement and being ordered to pay the 
money back, it will send the wrong message to individuals who might be tempted to abuse 
government relief programs or otherwise commit fraud.3  In contrast, the government 
believes its recommended sentence of 15 months in prison strikes a fair balance that 
sends a strong message of deterrence to others tempted by the lure of easy money but 
also fits within the mandate of imposing punishment that is sufficient but not greater than 
necessary to satisfy the proper purposes of sentencing. 
In his Motion, the defendant also describes a litany of health conditions in support 
of his effort to avoid a sentence of incarceration.  However, these medical conditions do 
 
3 The media has been rife with stories of frauds perpetrated by those who abused the relief 
programs created and/or funded by the CARES Act passed in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis.   
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 7 of 9

 
8 
 
not justify the very large variance the defendant is seeking here.  To the extent the 
defendant needs medical attention, that can be provided by the Bureau of Prisons while 
the defendant is in custody.  Indeed, the Bureau of Prisons successfully manages a large 
inmate population of all ages that includes numerous inmates with a litany of medical 
conditions.  Moreover, the government notes that these medical conditions apparently 
did not prevent the defendant from maintaining his full time employment in the demanding 
position of an MDCRD Correctional Sergeant.     
 
Section 3553(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(5) 
These subsections of §3553(a) require consideration of the types of sentences 
available, advisory Guidelines sentencing range and any relevant policy statements in 
determining the final sentence.  The PSR lays out the advisory Guidelines in clear and 
concise terms, and also discusses the upcoming Zero-Point Offender two-level downward 
adjustment becoming effective November 1, 2023, and how it may be proper to make that 
adjustment in this case via a two-level downward variance.  Indeed, the government is 
urging a sentence – 15 months incarceration – that is at the low end of the advisory 
Guidelines sentencing range that results from that two-level downward variance the Court 
granted today.    
 
Section 3553(a)(6)  
This sub-section focuses on avoiding sentencing disparity.  The defendant cites 
no similar examples of criminal justice system supervisory employees using multiple 
corporate entities to fraudulently obtain numerous large COVID-relief loans totaling in 
excess of $400,000 receiving sentences of home confinement.  Nor is there any other 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 8 of 9

 
9 
 
special factor present in this case that would raise the risk of sentencing disparity should 
a sentence at the low end of the new advisory Guidelines range be imposed.  
 
Section 3553(a)(7) 
This sub-section addresses the need to ensure that restitution is made.  The 15 
month sentence recommended by the government, with the real time served in prison 
likely to be reduced for good time credits, will provide meaningful punishment while still 
allowing the defendant to return to the community relatively quickly to seek employment 
and begin repaying the restitution that he owes to the SBA.   
WHEREFORE, the government respectfully requests that this Court deny the 
defendant’s request for a sentence of home confinement, and instead impose a sentence 
of 15 months incarceration, followed by a term of supervised release, along with 
restitution, a final order of forfeiture, and a $100 special assessment as mandated by law.   
Respectfully submitted, 
 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE  
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
By: 
s/Edward N. Stamm   
Edward N. Stamm (FL Bar #373826) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
U.S. Attorney=s Office - SDFL 
99 Northeast Fourth Street, 8th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Telephone: (305) 961-9164 
E-mail: edward.stamm@usdoj.gov 
Case 1:23-cr-20295-CMA   Document 23   Entered on FLSD Docket 10/23/2023   Page 9 of 9

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.650685.23.0.pdf

Size

170,253 bytes

SHA-256

10a2bee3d0c6aa3f4d5c7a9cd2b7050125cf4c78d637ea838bb74a712848f6ab

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.650685.23.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)