Sentencing Memorandum (Defense) — United States v. Bath

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California · No. 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO · Doc. 36 · 2026-03-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) 
 
Roger S. Bonakdar, #253920 
2344 TULARE ST., SUITE 200 
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA 93721 
PHONE (559) 495-1545 
FAX (559) 495-1527 
Attorney for DEFENDANT, GURJEET BATH 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
                                              Plaintiff, 
 
                                    v. 
GURJEET BATH, 
                                             Defendant.  
CASE NO.  1:24-CR-00198-001 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
Sentencing:  March 23, 2026 
 
COMES NOW Defendant, GURJEET BATH (hereinafter “Mr Bath”) with the following 
Formal Objection and Statement in Mitigation/Sentencing Memorandum. 
The factual background and equities in this case are unique and deserve emphasis. As a 
result, below Mr. Bath first presents the broad and plentiful grounds for Mr. Bath to be 
sentenced to a non-custodial term and granted probation. Thereafter, the mechanical grounds of 
the objections and 3553 factors are applied; as they can more succinctly be done with this first 
section as a backdrop. 
I: 
Short Summary of Charges and Salient Events 
 
The factual backdrop of this case is very simple: Mr. Bath made false statement(s) 
(overstatement) of his LLC’s payroll in order to get larger PPP loans than he qualified for. 
Specifically, Mr. Bath’s corporations, GS Bath, Inc. and Complete Transportation Solutions, 
received $848,010 more in PPP loans than they actually qualified for.  
 
Before being arrested, Mr. Bath was contacted by law enforcement regarding the loans. 
Immediately from his first contact he admitted his wrongdoing to agents. He did not require 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 1 of 7

 
2 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
anything of them as a condition precedent to accepting responsibility and endeavoring to make 
amends. Indeed, at that initial contact (phone call February 5, 2024) he told the agents that he 
would pay back “every penny.” Mr. Bath honored his word and in fact paid back 100% of the 
loans received and has made full restitution. 
II 
Absolute Cooperation, Without Being First Charged 
 
As per Paragraph 12 of the PSR, Mr. Bath immediately acknowledged wrongdoing and 
accepted responsibility for the losses, after only a phone call with Agents, in February 2024. No 
arrest. No charge. Immediately after that contact Mr. Bath fully cooperated with investigations. 
Without waiving privilege, Mr. Bath communicated directly with agents, providing documents 
and information as requested, against the instructions of his then counsel (not the undersigned). 
Indeed,  the court is asked to note that the first entry on the docket for this case is the 
Information, filed in August of 2024.  The plea agreement was filed the next day. The 
foregoing level of timely cooperation is rare and deserving of special consideration for 
purposes departure/variance downward at sentencing. 
III 
Possibly the Only PPP Case That Does Not Involve Lamborghinis and Lavish Expenses 
 
In most PPP cases we see the money being squandered on excess and consumption. In 
said typical cases, the Factual Basis sections of the pleas present purchases of fancy cars like 
Lamborghinis, “flexing for the ‘Gram” (posting excess and lavish lifestyle on Instagram/social 
media) and other improper circumstances. Here, Mr. Bath attempted to deploy the funds for 
actual business purposes, which had the potential to create positive economic activity in his 
community, by way of real estate development/construction. So, while Mr. Bath did more in 
loans than he should have, he intended to put the money to productive use. This is further 
grounds for departure/variance downward at sentencing. 
 
 
 
/// 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 2 of 7

 
3 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
IV 
Rare Case With ZERO Actual Loss to the Government: Variance to the Base Offense 
Level is Righteous 
 
Because most PPP cases are built off trails of abject frivolity and excess, the persons 
who took the money never make restitution. Indeed, in nearly all cases the parties charged lack 
the ability to ever pay the money back, even over their whole lifetimes. In stark contrast, Mr. 
Bath immediately set out to repay the monies and it is stipulated that he timely and fully paid 
restitution. This is an incredibly important factor which itself is grounds for variance/departure 
down to the base offense level of 6. 
V 
Depression and Family Issues Underly the Offense 
 
The PSR touches on Mr. Bath’s background, and why he made the false statements to 
get the loans. Mr. Bath’s relationship with this father is/was (putting it politely) strained. 
Culturally, south east Asian sons often live with their parents (bringing their bride and new 
children) with them. Melding the two families under one roof can be challenging and a source 
of conflict. For Mr. Bath, it was a psychological struggle because following his cultural norms 
meant continued psychological harm, stemming from the relationship with his father. The two 
were financially tied, in addition to domestically in their living circumstances. Mr. Bath was 
pummeled with this interdependence, to such a point where he became clinically depressed. 
The depression opened the door to substance use and abuse, and from there, he found the 
“motive” to engage in the subject conduct. He was desperate for freedom; to prove his 
independent value and productivity; to be the man of his household. Unfortunately, this 
culminated in the wrongful conduct, which Mr. Bath deeply regrets, and for which he timely 
sought to make right. Mr. Bath is getting mental health care, is sober, and is in the “right place” 
to be appropriately granted probation. 
VI 
Bath Contributes to Society & is Worthy of a Chance at Non-Custodial Redemption 
 
Mr. Bath presents with real potential, making him worthy of a grant of probation. He is 
UC Davis alumni, with degrees in hard sciences. He is a husband and father of two, including 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 3 of 7

 
4 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
an infant. The character letters attached (identified infra) make clear that he is a decent and kind 
person, looked to for help and support by his community. In many instances, we see defendants 
who are given second chances that do not seize the opportunity to be productive. Mr. Bath has 
the tools (education, remorse, youth) and motivation (his wife, two children) to take a grant of 
probation to be a fully productive and positive member of society.   
VII 
Objections to PSR 
 
Mr. Bath objects to the PSR on the following grounds, in the order presented therein: 
 
(a) 
Paragraph 62: The PSR inflates Mr. Bath’s financial status. Specifically, two 
properties are identified as being “owned” by Mr. Bath. Informal request was made to correct 
this implication, so that it can be made clear that he owes money on both—the debt is, after all, 
collateralized by the subject properties. One property, the Elm Street property, is subject to a 
“seller-carry-back” loan. Mr. Bath had to stop paying on the first-position secured loan on this 
property to pay restitution in this case; the seller declared default and foreclosed. Because this 
and the Peach Avenue notes are apparently not on his credit profile, his debt and expenses 
associated therewith are not factored by the PSR. Request by Mr. Bath for a copy of the 
“Accurint” report relied on by Probation was declined. 
 
(b) 
Paragraph 72: The guideline range of the fines applicable is capped at $95,000 
(see 5E1.2(c)(3)). The draft PSR mentioned this, but the final omits it. This is important 
because Mr. Bath stipulated to $100,000, which is greater than the guideline, and thus is further 
grounds for departure/variance downward on the guideline. 
 
(c) 
Paragraph 83: There is no restitution in this case, because it was paid in full 
before sentencing. The plea agreement makes clear that the forfeiture provisions are 
extinguished by this fact. Therefore, the forfeiture provisions should be stricken. 
 
(d) 
Paragraph 86: There are multiple and deep grounds for departures. Those 
include the immediate and full cooperation with the Government, very early plea, mental 
health/substance use/abuse, the good-faith use of funds, early and full payment of restitution, 
Bath’s “redemption” value, etc. All of the foregoing is developed, supra, and incorporated by 
this reference as if fully set forth hereunder. Despite all these grounds, the PSR assigns no 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 4 of 7

 
5 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
value to these very unique and compelling circumstances; all of which mitigate the offense and 
readily justify variance/departure down to the BOL of 6, and non-custodial sentencing. 
VIII 
3553(a) Factors Applied 
• 
The nature and circumstances of the offense and history and characteristics of 
the defendant; 
o Bath received more in PPP loans than she should have, but the funds 
were put to non-frivolous good faith use, and no Actual Loss actually 
occurred. The events at issue occurred in a dark time in Mr. Bath’s life, 
which is/was merely a 5 year period, in what was/is a law abiding life. 
Mr. Bath has a greater length of good history, but orders of magnitude. 
This, coupled with his education, family and societal support, motivation 
by his children including infant, all factor in favor of a non-custodial 
probationary term. 
• The need for the sentence imposed to: 1) reflect the seriousness of the offense 
and promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense, 
2) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, 3) to protect the public 
from further crimes of the defendant, and 4) to provide the defendant with 
needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional 
treatment in the most effective manner; 
o This is/was a financial offense. Mr. Bath has suffered financial ruin (at 
his own hand, of course) by putting every ounce of his productive time 
into making full restitution of the funds. He has further stipulated to an 
ABOVE guideline fine in this financial case—a fine of $100,000. For a 
financial offense, the punishment should be financial and custodial term 
does NOT add value for respect of law or punishment. Indeed, Mr. Bath 
now cannot get any government loans or grants, including FHA home 
loans to house his children and family, going forward. His conviction of 
this moral-turpitude offense will make it nearly impossible to even get a 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 5 of 7

 
6 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
private loan, as it will be uncovered in underwriting of bank loans and 
grounds for denial. All of this, in the collective, is more than adequate 
punishment. Any amount of custodial time would be more “sporting” 
than appropriate. 
• The kinds of sentences available; 
o Mr. Bath is eligible to for probation, without limitation. There is no 
minimum term of incarceration. The court is empowered to grant Mr. 
Bath the opportunity to redeem himself, if for no other reason than for 
the sake of his two small children, who need him. 
• The kinds of sentence and sentencing range set forth in the guidelines; 
o The guideline range does not fairly reflect the conduct at issue. 
Specifically, the guideline does not factor in the mental health issues that 
surrounded the events and, possibly more importantly, fail to account for 
then immense value of having paid full restitution. This is extremely 
important and cannot be overstated, because it changes the entire 
equitable calculus. That said, apart from failing to incorporate the two 
(2) level variance stipulated to by the Government as a term of the plea, 
the guideline calculation is correct as of the date of the plea, but should 
be equitably 6 by the date of sentencing. 
• The policy statements set forth in the guidelines; 
o There is no policy set forth in the guideline that would be served by 
imposition of any time in custody.  
• The need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with 
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and 
o There are no co-defendants and probation is/has been granted in this 
District in financial offenses where restitution was owing, let alone paid. 
Therefore, granting probation in this instance is appropriate. 
• The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 
o Restitution was paid, in full, before sentencing. 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 6 of 7

 
7 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
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
27
28
Character Letters - - Mr. Bath submits the following character letters for the court to 
consider. These letters are attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference: 
1. Letter from Rodrigo Gutierrez, former co-worker 
2. Letter from Charles Membrila, former co-worker; 
3. Letter from Gagandeep Singh, long-time friend; 
4. Letter from Harminder Singh, long-time friend; 
5. Letter from Jagit Bath, youngest sister; 
6. Letter from Avpreet Othee, brother-in-law; 
7. Letter from Kao Saetern, neighbor/friend; and 
8. Letter from Sara McKillip, business associate/friend. 
IX 
CONCLUSION 
 
Mr. Bath is worthy of a grant of probation. He is a husband, father, and has potential to 
do great things. He accepted responsibility immediately, cooperated unconditionally, and has 
made full restitution - “every penny.” Mr. Bath and his family will be present at sentencing. 
They collectively implore the court to grant him probation, and thank the court for its time in 
consideration of this brief and materials. 
 
Respectfully submitted. 
Dated: March 9, 2026  
 
 
BONAKDAR LAW FIRM 
 
  
 
 
 
 
   
   By: /s/ Roger S. Bonakdar 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
ROGER S. BONAKDAR 
                                     
 
 
 
Attorney for Defendant 
                                     
 
 
 
GURJEET BATH 
 
 
 
Case 1:24-cr-00198-JLT-SKO     Document 36     Filed 03/09/26     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.caed.451006.36.0.pdf

Size

196,151 bytes

SHA-256

f55acc20bfb7b53da5f07886c6bb3f38917c6739c614808143c84e9cf93b0a5c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.caed.451006.36.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)