United States' Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Aaron Boren (N.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Northern District of California · No. 4:23-cr-00134-AMO · Doc. 79 · 2024-05-06 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 1 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
ISMAIL J. RAMSEY (CABN 189820) 
United States Attorney 
 
MARTHA BOERSCH (CABN 126569) 
Chief, Criminal Division 
 
ABRAHAM FINE (CABN 292647) 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
1301 Clay Street, Suite 340S 
Oakland, California 94612 
Telephone: (510) 637-3717 
FAX: (510) 637-3724 
Abraham.Fine@usdoj.gov 
 
Attorneys for United States of America 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
OAKLAND DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
AARON BOREN, 
 
Defendant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
CASE NO. 23-CR-0134-AMO 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING 
MEMORANDUM 
 
Date:  
May 13, 2024 
Time:  
2:00 p.m.                  
Court: 
Honorable Araceli Martínez-Olguín            
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 1 of 7

 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 2 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
INTRODUCTION 
Defendant Aaron Boren stole $500,000 in pandemic funds meant to help struggling businesses.  
As described below, Boren, with the help of Reginald Mosley and others, submitted a fraudulent PPP 
loan application on behalf of his company, Aaron Boren Consulting Group (“ABCG”).  Although 
ABCG had no outside employees and little actual business, Boren’s loan application fraudulently 
affirmed that his company had 25 employees and monthly payroll expenses of $200,000.  Reginald 
Mosley drafted Boren’s application and provided the supporting documents, while Boren signed off on 
the final submission.  As a result, Boren received $500,000 in fraudulent proceeds and then paid a 15% 
kickback to Reginald Mosley.  Rather than use that money for payroll and other business expenses (as 
required by the CARES Act), Boren used the money to fund his daily life as well as other business 
ventures.   
When government agents approached Boren, he quickly and truthfully confessed to his role in 
the scheme and offered to plead guilty.  While Boren should get credit for his early acceptance of 
responsibility, the government submits that a custodial sentence is warranted given the seriousness of 
the crime and the national emergency during which it occurred.  Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 
below, the government respectfully requests that the Court sentence Boren to 12 months and one day 
imprisonment, a three-year term of supervised release (with the conditions recommended by probation 
and set forth in the plea agreement), $500,000 in restitution, a $100 special assessment, and order 
forfeiture of the items set forth in the plea agreement. 
BACKGROUND 
I. 
Offense Conduct 
A. 
Background on Federal Loan Programs 
The CARES (Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security) Act is a federal law enacted in 
March 2020 and designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans who 
were suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.  See Presentence Investigation 
Report (“PSR”) ¶¶ 10-13.  One source of relief provided by the CARES Act was the authorization of 
hundreds of billions of dollars in forgivable loans to small businesses for job retention and certain other 
expenses, through a program referred to as the PPP.   
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 2 of 7

 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 3 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
PPP loans were administered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) through approved 
lenders and were designed to assist small business owners with expenses such as payroll costs, rent, and 
utilities so that businesses could maintain their workforce during the COVID-19 crisis.  The loan amount 
was determined by the monthly payroll of the small business.  The loan money came directly from the 
approved lenders to the applicant and was guaranteed by the SBA.  To qualify for a PPP loan, the 
applicant’s business must have been in operation on February 15, 2020, have employees, have average 
monthly payroll costs, and provide documentation to support these assertions.  The PPP loan application 
required the borrower to certify that the funds would be used to retain workers and maintain payroll; or 
make payments for mortgage interest, rent, utilities, covered operations expenditures, covered property 
damage costs, covered supplier costs, and covered worker protection expenditures as specified under the 
Paycheck Protection Program Rules.  In addition, the PPP loan application required applicants to state 
any other businesses they own, and specify whether they have applied for any other PPP loans. 
B. 
Boren’s Fraudulent PPP Loan for ABCG 
 In February and March of 2021, Boren and Reginald Mosley had discussions about filing a 
fraudulent PPP loan application on behalf of ABCG.  Id. ¶ 37.  Boren and Reginald Mosley knew each 
other from their experience in the Sacramento-area auto sales industry.  Reginald Mosley helped prepare 
the paperwork with information provided by Boren.  Id.  In March 2021, Boren submitted the 
application, which falsely affirmed that ABCG had 25 employees with a monthly payroll of $200,000.  
Id. ¶ 38.  The application also included false tax returns, supposedly filed with the IRS and signed by 
Boren, asserting that ABCG received $2,689,151 in gross receipts in 2020 and that ABCG paid a total of 
$2,400,000 to all employees in 2020.  Id.  In fact, ABCG did not have any employees other than Boren, 
did not have a monthly payroll anywhere near the amount represented, and did not file any tax returns 
for 2020.  Id. 
On March 22, 2021, ABCG received $500,000 in PPP loan proceeds.  Id. ¶ 39.  In the days that 
followed, Boren used the money to fund various personal expenses and also transferred $75,000 to the 
FTI bank account controlled by Frank and Reginald Mosley.  Id.  Rather than use the money for 
legitimate business purposes, as required by the CARES Act, Boren used the money on personal 
expenses, other business ventures, and funneled some to family members via fake payroll transactions.  
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 3 of 7

 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 4 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
Id.  
II. 
Procedural Posture 
 
On May 4, 2023, the government filed an Information charging Boren, as well as Frank Mosley, 
Reginald Mosley, Marcus Wilborn, and Scott Conway, with one count of conspiracy bank fraud, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349.  ECF No. 1.  Boren and his co-defendants were released pending trial.  
On September 12, 2023, Boren pled guilty to the charge against him.   ECF No. 40.  Per the plea 
agreement, the parties agreed that the applicable Offense Level under the Sentencing Guidelines is 16 
(plus an additional two-point reduction given that Defendant is a zero-point offender), and the 
government agreed to recommend a sentence of 12 months and one day in custody, as well supervised 
release, forfeiture, restitution, and a special assessment.  PSR, ¶ 3.   
ARGUMENT 
I. 
Legal Standard 
The United States Sentencing Guidelines serve as “the starting point and initial benchmark” of 
any sentencing process and are to be kept in mind throughout the process.  See United States v. Carty, 
520 F.3d 984, 991 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Kimbrough, 522 U.S. 85, 108 (2007).  The 
overarching goal of sentencing, as set forth by Congress, is for the Court is to “impose a sentence 
sufficient, but not greater than necessary.”  Carty, 520 F.3d at 991.  In accomplishing that goal, the 
Court should consider the factors set forth under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), to include:  
(1)  
the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 
characteristics of the defendant;  
(2) 
the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the 
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just 
punishment for the offense;  
(3) 
the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to 
criminal conduct;  
(4) 
the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 
similar conduct. 
II. 
Sentencing Guidelines Calculation 
As set forth in the PSR and the plea agreement, the Sentencing Guidelines calculations for 
Defendant’s offense level is as follows:  
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 4 of 7

 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 5 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
 
 
U.S.S.G. Section 
Level/Points 
Base offense level 
 
§2B1.1(a)(1) 
  
7 
Specific offense characteristics 
§2B1.1(b)(1)(G) - Intended 
loss amount between 
$250,000 and $550,000 
 
+12 
 
 
 
Adjusted offense level 
 
19 
Acceptance of responsibility 
§3E1.1 
-3 
Zero Point Offender 
§4C1.1 
-2 
Total offense level 
 
14 
Criminal History Category 
 
I 
RANGE 
 
15-21 months 
 
PSR ¶¶ 47-57. 
The Probation Officer concluded that Defendant’s criminal history score is 0, and he therefore 
falls into Criminal History Category I.  Id., ¶¶ 61-62.  As reflected in the PSR, the Guidelines range for 
imprisonment associated with adjusted offense level 14 and Criminal History Category I is 15 to 21 
months.  Id. ¶ 97.  The Probation Officer recommends a sentence of 12 months and one day in custody.  
Id. at Sentencing Recommendation. 
III. 
The United States’ Sentencing Recommendation 
Based on a consideration of the Guidelines and the factors in Section 3553(a), the United States 
submits that a sentence of 12 months’ and one day of imprisonment, coupled with a three-year term of 
supervised release, a restitution order as set forth in the PSR, and a forfeiture order are sufficient, but not 
greater than necessary, to comply with the factors set out above.  
Primarily, the government notes that Boren’s charged conduct, stealing $500,000 in pandemic 
funds meant for struggling businesses, was serious.  The PPP fraud was undertaken during a time of 
great national hardship.  Many legitimate businesses were in need of the type of PPP loan funds that 
Boren obtained; the defendant took advantage of a program that was meant to make those funds flow 
easily to needy legitimate recipients, and not to him.  As described above, funding for the PPP program 
was capped, so any money Boren obtained from the program did not go to other struggling businesses 
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 5 of 7

 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 6 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
that needed it.  Simply put, this fraud is different and more egregious than a run-of-the-mill tax fraud or 
other government benefit fraud given the national emergency that was occurring in the background.  
And when Boren obtained the money, he did not use it for payroll and other business expenses, as 
required by the CARES Act.  Rather, he used it for personal expenses, other business ventures, and 
funneled portions of the money through fake payroll transactions on the Gusto platform.   
Moreover, general deterrence and the message this case sends to the public are important 
principles to consider.  As noted above, the government funds at issue in the PPP-loan fraud aspect of 
this case flowed freely – as they should have – during a time of national hardship.  Other individuals 
who are in Boren’s position now and in the future must know that, on top of a federal felony conviction, 
defrauding programs like the PPP will result in prison time and monetary penalties.   
No doubt, Boren should get credit for accepting responsibility early and admitting to his crimes.  
For that reason, the government is recommending a sentence that is 20% below the low-end of the 
Guidelines.  Nevertheless, the government respectfully recommends that a custodial sentence is 
warranted in this case given the significant loss amount ($500,000) and the fact that Boren took 
advantage of the pandemic to line his own pockets. 
Finally, one of the § 3553(a) factors is the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.  As the Court might 
expect, Boren was not the only person to commit PPP fraud, and many others around the country who 
committed similar crimes have already been sentenced.  A representative sample of some of those 
sentences from our district and other districts in California are as follows:1 
 
District 
Case Name/Number 
Loss Amount 
Sentence 
N.D.C.A. 
United States v. Christina 
Burden, No. 21-CR-0362-YGR 
$1,143,191 
36 Months 
E.D.C.A. 
United States v. Aaron Ashcraft, 
No. 22-CR-0087-KJM 
$1,200,000 
41 Months 
N.D.C.A. 
United States v. Miranda Devlin, 
No. 21-CR-0226-MMC 
$565,355 
18 Months 
C.D.C.A. 
United States v. Vardan 
$3,000,000 
51 Months 
 
1 Several websites have been tracking CARES Act Fraud cases and sentences, such as 
https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/general/cares-act-fraud-tracker/ (last updated February 1, 2024). 
 
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 6 of 7

 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 7 
 
23-CR-0134-AMO 
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 
Khalatyan, No. 22-CR-0441-
MCS 
N.D.C.A. 
United States v. Caesar Oskan, 
No. 21-CR-0143-CRB 
$268,719 
18 Months 
C.D.C.A. 
United States v. William Sadleir, 
No. 20-CR-0299-DMG 
$1,700,000 
41 Months 
C.D.C.A. 
United States v. Raymond 
Magana, No. 21-CR-0007-SB 
$2,237,831 
41 Months 
C.D.C.A. 
United States v. Steven Goldstein, 
No. 20-CR-0597-SB 
$655,000 
12 Months + 1 Day 
N.D.C.A. 
United States v. Ester Ozkar, No. 
21-CR-0144-CRB 
$483,132 
12 Months + 1 Day 
C.D.C.A. 
United States v. Llerenas, No. 21-
cr-0187-JWH 
$4,300,000 
63 Months 
C.D.C.A. 
United States v. Amiryan, 20-cr-
0520-DMG 
$650,000 
41 Months 
 
Given the pandemic fraud sentences that have been ordered in this district, other districts in 
California, and throughout the country, the government submits that a sentence of 12 months and one 
day is appropriate in this case. 
CONCLUSION 
For the foregoing reasons, the government recommends that the Court sentence Defendant to 12 
months and one day in prison, a three-year term of supervised release, $500,000 in restitution, and a 
$100 special assessment.  The Court should also order Defendant to forfeit his interest in the items set 
forth in paragraph 11 of the plea agreement. 
 
 
DATED: May 6, 2024 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
ISMAIL J. RAMSEY 
United States Attorney 
 
 
_________/s/_______________ 
ABRAHAM FINE  
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 4:23-cr-00134-AMO     Document 79     Filed 05/06/24     Page 7 of 7

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cand.412167.79.0.pdf

Size

171,172 bytes

SHA-256

9838a87d5317913b8404bc48abde9a2425edb959adc9da05ee771eeb6521e83f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cand.412167.79.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)