Transcript of Sentencing — United States v. Mandy Ellen Bauer

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky · No. 1:22-cr-00004-GNS · Doc. 29 · 2022-11-16 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
Case No. 1:22-CR-00004-GNS  
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
MANDY ELLEN BAUER,
)
)
May 17, 2022 
Defendant.
)
Bowling Green, Kentucky 
* * * * *
TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING
BEFORE HONORABLE GREG N. STIVERS 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE
* * * * *
APPEARANCES:
For United States:
David Weiser
U. S. Attorney's Office 
717 West Broadway
Louisville, KY 40202
For Defendant:
William M. Butler, Jr. 
500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1520
Louisville, KY 40202
Transcriber:
Dena Legg, RDR, CRR, CCR-KY 
Official Court Reporter
232 U. S. Courthouse
Louisville, KY 40202
[Defendant present.]
  
Proceedings recorded by digital recording.  Transcript 
produced by computer from audio recording that the Court 
provided to transcriber.
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 164

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
2
(Begin proceedings in open court at 11:03 a.m.) 
DEPUTY CLERK:  Case Number 1:22-CR-4, United States of 
America versus Mandy Ellen Bauer.  We're here this morning for a 
sentencing hearing.  
MR. WEISER:  Good morning, Your Honor.  David Weiser 
for the United States. 
MR. BUTLER:  Good morning, Your Honor.  For the 
record, my name is William Butler.  I represent Ms. Bauer. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Good morning, folks.  Sorry 
we're running late.  
Mr. Butler, have you and Ms. Bauer had a chance to review 
the presentence investigation report including any revisions?  
MR. BUTLER:  Yes, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  Are there any objections to the report by 
the defendant?  
MR. BUTLER:  Your Honor, we did have several 
objections which have been addressed by probation and parole, I 
guess, to our satisfaction. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  Very well.  
Any objections by the United States?  
MR. WEISER:  No, sir. 
THE COURT:  Very well.  The court finds then that the 
report's accurate.  The total offense level is 14 with a 
criminal history category of IV.  
Is there an objection to that finding -- that specific 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 165

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
finding on behalf of the U.S.?  
MR. WEISER:  No, sir. 
THE COURT:  On behalf of the defendant?  
MR. BUTLER:  No objection to the calculation.  I think 
that's correct.  When I have a chance to say a word, I want to 
address the ten-level increase. 
THE COURT:  Yes, sir, I'll give you that chance right 
now.  
MR. BUTLER:  Thank you.  
Your Honor, the fact is that no money was received by 
Ms. Bauer even though the probation and parole report, the PSR, 
says that -- and it's completely correct that ten points was 
added because of an attempt to get more than $150,000.  
THE COURT:  She tried.  She kept trying; right?  
MR. BUTLER:  Well, she filed a lot of forms.  And, in 
fact -- you know, I don't want to get away from acceptance of 
responsibility, but she's told me, "I didn't know I was doing 
wrong until it was explained to me, and then I saw it was 
completely wrong."  
THE COURT:  All right. 
MR. BUTLER:  So, Your Honor, I've written a short 
sentencing memorandum.  Has the Court had a chance to look at 
that?  
THE COURT:  I have.  I have.  
MR. BUTLER:  And I think the sentencing memorandum -- 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 166

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
the history and characteristics of Mandy Bauer, I think, says it 
all.  She's had a substance problem.  She's been in a number of 
abusive relationships.  Of course, that's not gonna take away 
from what she did, but I'd like the Court to consider that.  
In paragraph 10 of the PSR, she was referred to Adanta for 
substance abuse and mental health counseling.  She has -- she 
has complied with that, Your Honor, and I think that's really an 
important thing to think about in giving a sentence that's 
sufficient but not greater than necessary to meet the ends of 
justice.  
THE COURT:  All right.  
MR. BUTLER:  She's continuing to follow through with 
that.  Given that, Your Honor, and her history and 
characteristics, it's our request for a variance.  And the 
request is for a noncustodial sentence, Your Honor.  She's gonna 
owe a $7,500 fine, which she has a job as a painter, and she 
will be able to -- if the Court allows her to remain free, 
she'll be able to make payments on that until that's paid.  
THE COURT:  All right. 
MR. BUTLER:  I think -- I think those are the main 
points.  If the Court would like me to verbalize what I've 
listed as her history and characteristics, I can, but if the 
Court has read that -- especially the letters from her two 
daughters, I think, were really significant in letting the Court 
know what her background has been.  I think that's extremely 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 167

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
important in meting out a proper sentence.  
THE COURT:  I did read their letters and Terry Neagle, 
the employer, I think. 
MR. BUTLER:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  Is she still working with that business?  
MR. BUTLER:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Does Ms. Bauer wish to address 
the court?  
MR. BUTLER:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  All right.  I'll let her go after 
Mr. Weiser here.  
Mr. Weiser. 
MR. WEISER:  Yes, sir.  Thank you.  
One of the tenets of criminal law is that we punish 
defendants for their intent and their actions.  We don't punish 
defendants for the final result.  And so if you try to kill 
someone and you shoot at them and miss, you still get charged 
with attempted murder and you still face the penalties for that 
crime because it was your intent and your actions to murder 
someone.  
We charge someone in a fraud case like this because it was 
Ms. Bauer's intent and it was her actions to steal this money 
from the government.  And this is not just money that's in a 
normal program that exists from day-to-day.  This is money 
that's coming from the CARES Act when our nation was facing an 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 168

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
unprecedented pandemic.  And we had businesses that were closed 
down, and our whole society was really affected by it.  
And we don't have unlimited resources.  There were 
businesses out there -- there were legitimate businesses out 
there that needed money that were not able to obtain money 
because there were limited resources available from the United 
States Treasury. 
And what we have here and unfortunately what we're gonna see 
again in this court -- I can tell this Court that we have a 
number of COVID-related fraud cases pending in our office; and 
so you're going to see more of these down the road.  This may be 
the first one, but you have a particularly heinous financial 
fraud case here because you have someone who is not only 
stealing money but stealing money in a time of great peril for 
our country and in a time when a number of businesses were not 
able to survive because they couldn't get these funds.  And 
businesses going under means people are unemployed, means people 
lose their livelihoods.  They lose their housing.  Their 
children are affected.  Their entire families are affected.  
Their life savings are gone.  
This is a particularly heinous attempt to take money from 
those who truly needed it in a time of desperation in our 
country.  And the fact that she didn't ultimately receive any 
money is of no import in this case.  
She didn't file one fraudulent application for funds.  She 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 169

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
filed nine fraudulent applications for various types of relief.  
And so this is something that she kept trying to do over and 
over -- 
THE COURT:  Okay.  This is --  
MR. WEISER:  -- again. 
THE COURT:  The crux of the case to me is -- when she 
filed this first application on April 2nd of 2020, was that 
denied?  
MR. WEISER:  So -- 
THE COURT:  When was it denied?  
MR. WEISER:  What happened, Your Honor, was that she 
filed a tax form -- if we look at the various charges -- I'm 
gonna go to the charge here.
MR. BUTLER:  Your Honor, I need to just break in for a 
second.  I apologize for interrupting Mr. Weiser. 
THE COURT:  All right.  No, that's -- 
MR. BUTLER:  But Ms. Bauer did operate a legitimate 
business called Family Personal Sales.  So it's -- 
MR. WEISER:  Right.  She bought furniture and 
refurbished it. 
MR. BUTLER:  That's correct.  I just want to make sure 
the Court understands that she wasn't just -- she did operate a 
legitimate business. 
THE COURT:  And I'll welcome information from both 
sides because to me there's a difference between trying every 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 170

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
day to get $10,000 for 30 days.  Well, if you get -- if the 
first application is denied and then you try it again the next 
day and it's denied, you try it again the next day, I view 
that -- it's akin to -- this is an example that pops into my 
head:  trying to steal candy out of a vending machine.  You try 
to steal a candy bar and you don't do it.  The next day you go 
back and you don't do it.  The next day you don't do it.  If you 
finally on the 30th day get that candy bar, should you be 
charged with trying to steal 30 candy bars?  You're trying to 
steal one candy bar 30 times.  So address -- that is something I 
would like to understand and I don't right now.  
MR. WEISER:  Sure, Your Honor.  What happened is that 
Ms. Bauer, in April, filed -- she filed with the IRS -- or was 
it May?  
THE COURT:  April 2, 2020, was the first one with the 
SBA. 
MR. WEISER:  That -- well, that's an SBA -- that's an 
EIDL loan application. 
THE COURT:  Right. 
MR. WEISER:  So what happened was she had a number of 
applications that were pending. 
THE COURT:  Were they -- I guess my question is were 
they cumulative, or were they -- 
MR. WEISER:  They were cumulative. 
THE COURT:  Okay.  
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 171

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
MR. WEISER:  They were stacked up.  She's not asking 
for 10,000 and didn't get it and then said, "Well, I still want 
10,000.  I'm gonna apply again." 
THE COURT:  Okay.  All right. 
MR. WEISER:  And so ultimately she files with the IRS 
to get -- to get the tax credits, the advance payment tax 
credits.  And the IRS notices discrepancies in what she's stated 
in her forms and what -- her previous filings.  And they say, 
"This doesn't make sense."  
When that is noticed, then they look up and they find out 
that there are other applications in the pipeline for PPP loans 
and EIDL loans.  And, in effect, a red flag was put on those 
applications.  As it turns out, at least one of those 
applications was about ready to get paid out when that happened, 
but the IRS noticed this and was able to put a stop to the 
payouts on these applications.  
But what we don't have here is a situation like the candy 
machine that you've spoken of where she's trying to get $10,000 
or $7,000 over and over and over again.  If you look, she's, 
first of all, trying to get three different types of relief:  
the EIDL loans, the PPP loans, and then the advanced payment of 
tax credits.  So those are three separate candy bars.  It's like 
trying to steal a Snickers over here and then a Reese's over 
here.  I mean, they're completely separate programs.  So those 
don't -- 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 172

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
THE COURT:  Separate vending machines; right?  
MR. WEISER:  Yes, different vending machines, and they 
can't lump together.  And then these are funds on top of funds 
that she was trying to seek.  
The dollar amounts of these loan applications aren't the 
same.  She's seeking sometimes more money, sometimes less money.  
But what you find is that it's nine individual attempts to 
obtain funds from these three various programs that were in 
existence.  
And so this is not -- sometimes we see people who make one 
mistake.  And then they realize there that I shouldn't have done 
that.  They don't do it again.  That's not what happened here.  
She kept filing fraudulent applications seeking a little bit 
over $230,000 in intended losses and because of that, that's why 
she finds herself here.  And the law doesn't care whether she 
actually received the funds or not because it's punishing her 
for what her attempt was, what her intent was, and what her 
actions were and not whether or not she was successful.  
And based on her lengthy criminal history, which involves 
numerous financial crimes as well as some drug offenses -- it 
also involves problems when she's been on probation and having 
probation revoked, because of her extensive criminal history, 
she's facing a longer sentence than she would if she were 
someone who came in here with a clean record.  
And so as a result, she ends up at an offense level of 14 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 173

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
with a criminal history of IV with a range of 27 to 33 months.  
The United States is going to recommend a 27-month sentence in 
this case pursuant to our plea agreement where we agreed to 
recommend a sentence at the low end of the guidelines.  
And we believe that sentence is -- a 27-month sentence, a 
sentence within the guideline range, is appropriate in this case 
and sets an important precedent for the future COVID fraud cases 
that are gonna come before this court, recognizing the 
seriousness of the offense, the time that this occurred and what 
the circumstances were when this occurred.  It's just punishment 
for the multiple attempts to obtain funds fraudulently.  It's 
gonna promote respect for the law.  It's also going to hopefully 
provide a deterrent effect.  
A lot of these programs are no longer in existence, but we 
don't know what the future holds.  We had Hurricane Katrina many 
years ago where the United States was pushing out hundreds of 
millions if not billions of dollars in relief funds, and we saw 
a lot of fraud there.  Now we've got COVID-19 where the United 
States is pushing out hundreds of billions of dollars, and we've 
got immense fraud in those programs.  
There is going to be, unfortunately, another disaster at 
some point in the future, and you would hope that you can deter 
people who are on the edge and thinking about trying to steal 
funds from the government that are -- 
THE COURT:  Don't even try it; right?
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 174

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
MR. WEISER:  -- so desperately needed by others.
THE COURT:  Don't even try it?  
MR. WEISER:  Don't even try it.  And that's --  
THE COURT:  So you're -- I'm gonna give Mr. Butler a 
chance.  You're saying though we should treat Ms. Bauer the same 
as we should treatment somebody else who actually got the 
$230,000, got it and spent it?  
MR. WEISER:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  Same?  
MR. WEISER:  That is exactly what I'm saying, Your 
Honor. 
THE COURT:  Well -- and I'm gonna ask Mr. Butler this 
'cause here is a problem that I have.  We seem to be having 
problems today.  But if Ms. Bauer had got -- if she had actually 
received $100,000 -- she's got a job, and one of the things that 
would influence me would be societally are we better off putting 
her in jail for 27 months or a lesser period so that she can 
have an opportunity to pay that money back?  
I will tell you, in most cases, that's -- that ability to be 
able to pay that money back is something that I used to go 
downward.  And so in this case, I thought how ironic it is she 
didn't get any money.  So she's going to get the 27 months 
because there's nothing to pay back.  That I cannot square.  
Maybe you can help me figure it out. 
MR. WEISER:  Well, Your Honor, there is certainly an 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 175

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
interest in getting victims repaid and particularly -- you know, 
let's be honest.  For the United States Government, $230,000 is 
a drop in the bucket.  If you had -- 
THE COURT:  Don't get me started, Mr. Weiser. 
MR. WEISER:  -- if you had -- but if you had an 
individual victim and you had a $230,000 loss, then it would be 
very -- 
THE COURT:  No, that's -- 
MR. WEISER:  Very important. 
THE COURT:  These fraud cases that have embezzlers, it 
happens all the time.  I mean, and it's --
MR. WEISER:  Yes. 
THE COURT:  So how are we better off sending the 
defendant to prison for two years and leave the victim still out 
the 100,000, $200,000, or reduce the prison sentence so that the 
defendant can start repaying that money?  
It's always been in my view, especially somebody with a 
minimal or no criminal history, which that distinguishes 
Ms. Bauer, but in those cases I have frequently -- I'm not gonna 
say always, but it's always been a motivation.  I really think 
we're better off having that person -- having the defendant out 
of jail or with a shorter prison sentence so they can start 
paying the money back.  That's just -- and, again, that's the -- 
that's the tension I feel here because, like, well, she would 
have been better off if she'd gotten $50,000 because I would 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 176

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
say, you know, Mr. Neagle says she's doing a great job with this 
home -- home repair business.  We'd be better off societally 
having her working and paying some of that money off and not 
having to pay $37,500 a year or whatever it is now to house her 
in a prison.  
MR. WEISER:  And, Your Honor, I think -- I understand 
where you're coming from, and I understand that that's a 
difficult issue, but I guess we don't want -- we shouldn't want 
to punish people differently based on whether or not they were 
successful in their crime.  
If you have two people who file false applications and one 
of them got the $230,000 and one of them didn't but they did the 
exact same act with the exact same intent, their punishments, 
given that it's the same criminal histories, should be the same.  
On top of that -- 
THE COURT:  So you're saying in my example -- so 
Ms. Bauer tries to get a Snickers bar, a bag of Doritos, a bag 
of candy -- she didn't get anything, but the person -- somebody 
else follows her.  They grab the Snickers bar.  They get the bag 
of Doritos.  They get the candy.  They should -- in the eyes of 
the law, you think they should be treated exactly the same?  
MR. WEISER:  Exactly the same except for the 
restitution order.  So she won't have one and that person will. 
THE COURT:  Well, here it's even worse, and here's the 
problem I have:  No, the one that's got the restitution 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 177

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
obligation, I send them to prison for a shorter period of time 
so they can start paying back the victim. 
MR. WEISER:  Well -- and that's the second factor. 
THE COURT:  It's a struggle.  Maybe it's just a 
dilemma.  It is an enigma.  Maybe there's just no solution to 
it, but I think there is.  
MR. WEISER:  Well -- and I think the one thing to 
address -- you know, I'm certainly in favor of trying to get 
victims made whole, but the one thing to address is when we look 
at that, when we focus on that factor, can this defendant repay 
this victim if I leave them out of prison?  First of all, what 
it does is it puts a defendant with a higher paying job or a 
better career in a better place than a defendant who's not 
working or who has low skills and is -- and so it separates 
defendants out based on that background, which I don't know 
would be entirely fair for a -- for a defendant who had a 
master's degree and committed this crime to get a lesser 
sentence because they have a higher income potential and they 
could repay their victim faster than someone who had maybe a 
high school degree and was working for minimum wage.  
THE COURT:  So the less skilled you are, the greater 
allowance because you're going to need more time to pay the 
money back.  
MR. WEISER:  Well, it would certainly -- 
THE COURT:  If you could go -- if you've got a 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 178

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
master's degree and you're making $200,000 a year, you can pay 
it back in six months.  So that's -- you know, so you don't need 
as big of a break.  I do think you could make an allowance for 
that, but -- 
MR. WEISER:  Well, and the other thing though that I'd 
like the Court to consider is that it -- if we focus on that, it 
takes away from some of these other 3553(a) factors.  It doesn't 
focus then on the seriousness of the offense.  It focuses on 
whether this defendant can repay and how best to ensure that 
repayment.  
THE COURT:  It's just one of the things -- just one 
irony.  This is just one factor.  It just -- frankly, I don't 
accept the notion that Ms. Bauer should be treated the same 
having gotten zero money, having whiffed on all of these 
attempts -- attempted thefts of government money to be treated 
exactly the same as if all of these applications had been 
granted.  That's -- I just don't buy that.  
The law -- maybe the law should, but I just -- I view 
differently the person that got the candy and ate it and 
repeated it over and over successfully than someone who whiffed 
on all those attempts.  They don't seem like -- in terms of when 
it comes time to punish somebody, it seems to me like the 
punishment should be less severe for someone who unsuccessfully 
tried -- you know, submitted all of these false applications.  
MR. WEISER:  And I wish I could tell you that this 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 179

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
won't come up again, but you're gonna be seeing a number of 
COVID fraud cases.  You're gonna see cases where people got a 
lot of money.  You're gonna see cases like this one where they 
didn't get a lot or much money.  This is just the precursor for 
a wave that's going to be with us for the next several years, 
I'm afraid.  
MR. BUTLER:  Your Honor, thinking about when was this 
-- when did these things happen, page 4 of the PSR shows that 
her first loan application was April 2nd, 2020.  Her last 
application was July 1, 2020.  So we have -- and when the Court 
mentioned that a few minutes ago, it suddenly dawned on me that 
that should be a factor to think about.  
And all these -- as I told the Court what she told me, "I 
didn't know I was doing wrong, but it was explained to me.  Then 
I knew I was doing wrong."  
Here April 2nd, April 5th, 7th, 8th, 13th, 29th, May 29th, 
June 29th, July 1, this is -- I think should be looked at in a 
different light than someone who sits down and says, "Okay.  I'm 
gonna file nine different applications with a number of 
different things.  I'll just do it all at once and maybe I can 
get 230,000."  
Again, she had a legitimate business.  She didn't do a good 
job of paying things that were owed.  For instance, I can tell 
the Court that her 2022 -- or 2020 unemployment owed to the 
State of Kentucky was $1,890.68.  There was -- there wasn't 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 180

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
anything wrong with that except her business didn't pay what it 
was supposed to pay, and I think that's significant.  It all 
melds into the 3553, Your Honor.  
THE COURT:  All right.  And does Ms. Bauer wish to 
address the court?  
All right.  Yes, ma'am.  
THE DEFENDANT:  You want me to come up there?  
THE COURT:  Wherever you feel more comfortable.  If 
you're speaking from there, if you'd pull that microphone up to 
you. 
THE DEFENDANT:  Okay.  I didn't have anything 
prepared.  So I'll just speak from the heart.  My past is bad.  
It's not good, anyway.  It's not pretty, but I served my time, 
and I was determined to change.  
In 2014, I -- I like furniture.  I have a passion for it; 
and so I started selling furniture, but I wanted it to all be 
legal.  So I applied for my business license in it, and I got 
all that done.  I decided to go back to school because I didn't 
know anything about running a business, and I graduated in 2019 
with a degree in business administration.  
Now, all this time I -- I've got kids.  I had a little boy, 
and I'm a single -- you know, I was a single mom.  And then when 
COVID hit -- you know, I had employees.  I've turned in -- like 
you said, before COVID I was paying unemployment and stuff like 
that in case, you know, something happened that an employee went 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 181

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
on unemployment.  I was trying to do it all right.  
And all this time my little boy, you know, is in school.  So 
now he has to go on home school, and I have to work around his 
schedule.  I needed help.  You know, everything got shut down.  
All the businesses got shut down.  I needed some way to help pay 
these employees because now I don't have any money.  
I did apply.  And the first one I applied to, the 7,200 he 
was talking about, they sent me a letter saying they couldn't 
accept it but asked me to turn in another one.  I applied for 
other things, but I did look it up to make sure I could.  
The entire time I felt I was not doing anything wrong until 
they explained it to me; and so I do accept responsibility, but 
my intent wasn't to steal.  I applied for a loan, something I 
had to pay back.  And the numbers were different because I was 
applying for them sitting there with my kid and doing his 
homework on a computer.  So I was just roundabout figuring 
because I figured if I do -- if I am accepted for a loan, 
they're gonna go over it with me.  I had to turn in all of my 
paperwork from my previous tax years.  I didn't -- I didn't 
realize how important getting them numbers right were. 
THE COURT:  Well, let's start with this, ma'am:  How 
many employees did you have with this business?  
THE DEFENDANT:  Well, that's the thing.  I had ten 
people counting myself, counting my tax lady, counting the 
people that I was giving 1099s to.  And then I called one of the 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 182

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
places -- I think it was either NAV or Lendio, and what they do 
is they're a middleman.  You apply through them, but they send 
it out to the lenders.  And I called them and go over it with 
them.  I sent them -- send everything I need.  They go over it 
with me and they said, "No, you don't count yourself.  You don't 
count your tax lady, and you don't count the 1099 employees from 
last year," they said, "but you count six of them."  And so 
that's why that number changed.
THE COURT:  All right.  I'm sorry for interrupting 
you.  
THE DEFENDANT:  Sorry.  But my intent was to get a 
loan.  It wasn't to steal money from anybody.  It was to help 
financially when I needed help financially, and I apologize.  
Had I known that I didn't have the right to put in those loans, 
I would not have put in for those loans.  So I accept 
responsibility. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Weiser. 
MR. WEISER:  Your Honor, I believe this calls into 
question acceptance of responsibility.  She applied for over 
$230,000 in loans.  I mean, if her business was killing it to 
that extent, then she certainly wouldn't find herself in 
financial problems, which clearly by her record -- she's been -- 
had financial difficulties all throughout her adulthood.  She's 
got a number of fraud cases.  
I mean, the numbers that she provided, she says she spoke to 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 183

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
some -- someone who assisted in filling out these applications.  
That's just garbage in, garbage out.  They put down the numbers 
that you tell them to put down.  
The fact is that these applications were fraudulent.  The 
United States understands the Court's reluctance to punish 
Ms. Bauer for the full extent of the loans because she didn't 
receive any of the funds.  I, like my colleague before me, am 
bound to request a sentence at the low end of the guidelines, 
but I would ask the Court, if your intent is to go below the 
guidelines in this case, that a significant term of imprisonment 
is still appropriate in a case like this.  
THE COURT:  All right.  I'm gonna take a recess.
(Recess at 11:34 a.m. until 11:43 a.m.) 
THE COURT:  All right.  Anything further, Mr. Butler?  
MR. BUTLER:  No, Your Honor.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  Very well.  Mr. Weiser promises me more of 
these cases, and I guess if this is a baseline, that's not a 
good thing.  
As I've indicated, the one huge thing I struggle with here 
is equating in the eyes of the law, you know, attempted loss -- 
intended loss versus Ms. Bauer's actual receipt of this money.  
And I frankly just -- I can't wrap my mind around just ignoring 
that distinction, but I accept the guideline range of 27 to 
33 months.  
And, of course, starting from there, Ms. Bauer, it's my duty 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 184

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
to impose a sentence that's sufficient but not greater than 
necessary to punish you for trying to steal this money from 
these government programs not just once but nine times, a total 
of 200 and something thousand dollars.  
And I will tell you, there are two factors in this case that 
tip the scales in terms of whether there'd be a period of 
incarceration or not.  One of them is your significant criminal 
history.  This is not your first rodeo.  You've been in a lot of 
trouble.  You spent four years in prison.  And as I usually say 
to folks when they've never been in trouble, if you've never 
been in trouble, then the first time you go to jail or to 
prison, that's -- that should be the shortest time that it takes 
to get somebody's attention.  That hasn't worked with you.  
And in conjunction with that -- and Mr. Butler cited to 
paragraph 10 of the PSR, but this -- ultimately at the end of 
the day, this is why I do think incarceration is necessary, and 
that is, after you were released on bond on February 2 of this 
year, you tested positive for meth.  I mean two weeks later.  
And you know what, if the probation folks had said, "No, 
Ms. Bauer has done everything that we've asked her to do," that 
would have made a huge impact on me, but that's simply not the 
case. 
And yet taking into consideration the fact that you didn't 
get any money -- we have to deter people from trying to steal 
money from these government programs.  The United States 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 185

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
Government is trying to pump out money to people who need it, 
and that need is defined by what the requirements of these 
programs are.  And to have somebody lying about their situation 
to get that money, it's got to be punished.  It's got to be 
deterred.  
And so in that regard, I do agree with Mr. Weiser, and I do 
think that in this instance a sentence of one year and a day is 
sufficient but not greater than necessary to punish you for 
these repeated attempts to steal money from the government, 
although you didn't get the money.  
Because it's a year and a day, you will get credit, good 
time credit, and I'm assuming you'll behave yourself while in 
jail.  So there'll be a reduction, I believe, of 15 percent for 
the good time that you spend.  
More importantly, as far as I'm concerned, you're gonna be 
on supervision when you're released, and the United States 
Probation Office is going to do everything they can to help you 
stay out of trouble.  They're gonna provide you support and make 
sure you get the drug testing, the drug treatment, the mental 
health treatment that you need.  And I hope that you look at 
that support as being intended to help you, not to punish you.  
This is -- you know, this is not a happy day for anybody.  I 
don't want to send you to prison, but I do believe that the -- 
that the facts of this case warrant that, and it's still less 
than half of what the guideline sentence would be.  
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 186

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
While on supervision you'll have standard conditions to 
abide by as well as special conditions, which include substance 
treatment, drug testing, mental health treatment, and specific 
financial conditions.  The U.S. Probation Office will answer any 
questions you may have about that.  You'll be required to pay a 
$100 special penalty assessment fee --
THE DEFENDANT:  Can I say one more thing, Your Honor?
THE COURT:  -- for the single count of conviction.
THE DEFENDANT:  Please.
THE COURT:  Ma'am?
THE CLERK:  It's not a single count of conviction.  
There are nine counts.
THE COURT:  I don't have the rest of that.
THE DEFENDANT:  Can I say one more thing, Your Honor, 
please?  
THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am, you may. 
THE DEFENDANT:  I didn't -- I didn't understand that I 
wasn't able to apply for any of -- any of these because I had a 
business, and that's what they were throwing out there.  It's 
for small businesses.  So I thought I was able to apply and so 
that's why I applied.  
THE COURT:  I understand that. 
THE DEFENDANT:  My son's autistic, and I take him to 
school every day, and I bring -- I go pick him up every day.  I 
take care of my son.  And I had him with me for six years, and 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 187

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
he's not been a day without me.  And I fully take care of him, 
and I'm a good momma and everybody will tell you I'm a good 
momma and I work.  Please, please, let me just have probation.  
Please, Your Honor, for my son.  We're getting him diagnosed 
now.  He's going through everything to get diagnosed and going 
to doctors, and I'm doing all of that and working.  
THE COURT:  Yes, ma'am.  Ms. Bauer, I've explained 
things would be different -- they'd likely be different if your 
compliance with your bond conditions had been complete.  It 
seems to me that you need time away from any sources of drugs 
and then --
THE DEFENDANT:  I agree. 
THE COURT:  -- when you're released from prison --
THE DEFENDANT:  I agree. 
THE COURT:  -- you definitely need to have drug 
treatment. 
THE DEFENDANT:  Please don't do this to my son. 
THE COURT:  Ma'am, this is not what I want to do.  
THE DEFENDANT:  He's -- 
THE COURT:  Believe me. 
THE DEFENDANT:  -- he's had three grandparents took 
from him within the last year, three grandparents.  He's going 
through a lot.  Please don't take his momma.  He's a momma's 
boy.  Please, Your Honor, please.  I'll pay extra if I have to.  
I'll take extra classes, just not my little boy.  He's going 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 188

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
through so much.  
THE COURT:  Ma'am, my sympathy for you is great.  
There is no question about that, and I'm -- 
MR. BUTLER:  Your Honor, may she have self-report?  
THE COURT:  Yes, she may self-report.  
MR. BUTLER:  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  The sentence of a year and a day will be 
for each of Counts 1 through 9 to be served concurrently for a 
total term of a year and a day.  The term of supervision will be 
three years as to each of Counts 1 through 9 to be served 
concurrently also for a total of three years.  
You'll be -- the special penalty assessment fee of $100 is 
for each count of conviction for a total of $900.  Restitution's 
not an issue in this case, and I am not gonna require the 
defendant to pay a fine in this instance.  
But having considered 18 U.S.C. Section 3553(a) of the 
advisory guidelines, which produce a total offense level of 14 
and a criminal history category of IV, the advisory guideline 
ranges are 27 to 33 months' custody, a fine of 7,500 to $75,000, 
and one to three years of supervised release, as I previously 
indicated, I think that a year and a day with no fine, followed 
by three years of supervision, although it's below the advisory 
guideline ranges, is sufficient but not greater than necessary 
to comply with the purposes set forth in the statute.  
Mr. Butler, are there any objections to the sentence 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 189

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
pronounced which have not previously been raised? 
MR. BUTLER:  No, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Ms. Bauer agreed in her plea 
agreement to waive her right to directly appeal her conviction 
and sentence, and we've got a form for her to sign acknowledging 
that.  
Does the United States object to having Ms. Bauer 
voluntarily report?  
MR. WEISER:  No, Your Honor. 
THE COURT:  All right.  
All right.  Mr. Butler, anything further?  
MR. BUTLER:  No, Your Honor.  Thank you. 
THE COURT:  All right.  Mr. Weiser?  
MR. WEISER:  No, sir.  Thank you.  
THE COURT:  All right.  Ms. Bauer, I wish you the best 
of luck. 
THE DEFENDANT:  Thank you, Your Honor.
(Proceedings concluded at 11:53 a.m.) 
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 190

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
C E R T I F I C A T E
I am an official court reporter for the U.S. District Court 
for the Western District of Kentucky and certify that the 
foregoing is a true and correct transcript, to the best of my 
ability, of the above pages, of the digital audio recording 
provided to me by the Court of the proceedings taken on the date 
and time previously stated in the above matter.
 
     s/ Dena Legg       
November 16, 2022 
Official Court Reporter
Date
Case 1:22-cr-00004-GNS     Document 29     Filed 11/16/22     Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 191

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.kywd.124235.29.0.pdf

Size

262,262 bytes

SHA-256

392e9492de9e61b5115d37de28e23d2ff94c5a532a3e05086e9f6e80f2d543b5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.kywd.124235.29.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)