United States Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Tiffany Bowlin (S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:22-cr-00205 · Doc. 28 · 2023-04-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
CHARLESTON 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                CRIMINAL NO. 2:22-cr-00205 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                   
TIFFANY BOWLIN 
 
UNITED STATES SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
The United States of America, by M. Ryan Blackwell, Assistant United States Attorney for 
the Southern District of West Virginia, submits this memorandum in aid of sentencing. 
I. 
Introduction 
Defendant, Tiffany Bowlin, pled guilty to single-count information charging her with wire 
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343.  The United States has no outstanding objections to the 
Presentence Report (“PSR”).  The Probation Officer correctly calculated the total offense to be 9.  
PSR ¶ 38.  Defendant is in criminal history category I, and her advisory guideline range is 4-10 
months’ incarceration.  PSR ¶ 64.    
II. 
Sentencing Options 
Defendant’s adjusted offense level falls within Zone B of the Sentencing Table.  Zone B 
sentences may be satisfied by (1) a sentence of imprisonment; (2) a sentence of imprisonment that 
includes a term of supervised release with a condition that substitutes community confinement or 
home detention according to the schedule in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(e), provided that at least one month 
is satisfied by imprisonment; or (3) a sentence of probation that includes a condition or 
combination of conditions that substitute intermittent confinement, community confinement or 
home detention for imprisonment according to the schedule in subsection (e).  PSR ¶ 64.  
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 86

2 
 
Defendant is convicted of a Class C felony, which authorizes this Court to impose a term of 
probation of not less than one nor more than five years.  PSR ¶ 99.  
III. 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors 
(A) Nature and Circumstances of the Offense 
In late 2019, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) began spreading throughout the 
world.  The novel disease brought with it sickness, death, and uncertainty on an unfathomable 
scale.  Upon learning of COVID-19 and its potential impacts, the United States government 
implemented extraordinary measures aimed to protect its citizens.  These measures attempted to 
protect the health, safety, and welfare of all people, while slowing the spread of the virus 
worldwide.  Among the many measures implemented by the United States designed to lessen the 
impacts of COVID-19 was the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act.  
PSR ¶ 6.  The CARES Act, in part, created the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).  PSR ¶ 7.  
The PPP provided forgivable government-backed loans to all qualifying small businesses impacted 
by COVID-19 who used the loaned money on qualifying businesses expenses.  PSR ¶ 7.  The 
PPP’s purpose was to provide an infusion of cash to businesses victimized by COVID-19, and to 
keep the U.S. economy afloat in the process.  PSR ¶¶ 6-7. 
During a time of unprecedented uncertainty, Defendant saw an opportunity to fraudulently 
enrich herself.  Defendant applied for a PPP loan, claiming to operate a hair salon in her own name 
when she knew this to be false.  PSR ¶ 10.  Defendant’s deception included submitting false IRS 
documents and affirming that the emergency funds would be used on business-related expenses.  
PSR ¶ 11.  Defendant received $20,833 in PPP funds based on her scheme, which she used on 
herself.  PSR ¶ 12.  Defendant’s deceit included attesting that the PPP loans were used for 
permissible business expenses, even though she knew they were not.  PSR ¶ 14.   
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 87

3 
 
The circumstances surrounding Defendant’s criminal conduct are particularly troubling as 
she used a generational tragedy to enrich herself through fraud.  The Court should give great weight 
to this factor in imposing a sentence within Defendant’s advisory guideline range.  See Gall v. 
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 59 (2007) (holding that it was “quite reasonabl[e]” for the sentencing 
court to have “attached great weight” to a 3553(a) factor.); see also Kimbrough v. United States, 
552 U.S. 85, 111 (2007) (holding that an appellate court should not find the sentencing court's 
reliance on a single factor unreasonable, so long as the court imposes a sentence “sufficient, but 
not greater than necessary to accomplish the sentencing goals advanced in § 3553(a)(2)”) (internal 
quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Pauley, 511 F.3d 468, 476 (4th Cir. 2007) 
(permitting a district court to “reasonably accord significant weight to a single sentencing factor 
in fashioning its sentence”). 
(B) History and Characteristics of the Defendant 
Defendant is thirty-three years old, and lives in Cross Lanes, West Virginia.  She received 
her General Education Diploma (“GED”) in 2012 from Kanawha County Garnett Career Center.  
PSR ¶ 58.  Defendant is gainfully employed and has been for at least the last ten years.  PSR ¶¶ 
59-61. 
Defendant has no criminal record beyond the instant offense.  PSR ¶ 40.  The fact that a 
defendant “has no prior criminal history . . . is taken into account in the advisory sentencing range 
calculation, and it simply places [her] within the ‘heartland’” of similar defendants.  United States 
v. Morace, 594 F.3d 340, 350 (4th Cir. 2010) (finding that the defendant’s lack of criminal history 
was already taken into account in the calculated range and that characteristic simply placed him 
well-within the “heartland” of persons convicted for possessing child pornography).  Defendant 
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 88

4 
 
timely accepted responsibility for her actions and agreed to restitution for the offense of conviction.  
PSR ¶ 28.  Defendant has been compliant during her term of pretrial release.  PSR ¶ 5.   
(C) The Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote Respect 
for the Law, Provide Just Punishment, Provide Adequate Deterrence, and Protect the 
Public 
 
Defendant exploited governmental efforts to aid those in need, for her own financial gain.  
While uncertainty and suffering increased worldwide, Defendant’s bank account increased through 
fraud.  Defendant’s actions are serious, and their impact extends beyond this case.  Each time 
federal benefits are obtained through fraud it misappropriates taxpayer dollars and shakes public 
confidence in government.  Defendant’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for the law and a 
fundamental failure to appreciate the purpose of COVID-19 relief funds. 
A sentence within Defendant’s advisory guideline range is needed to deter Defendant, and 
others, from engaging in similar conduct.  Congress has recognized that general deterrence is 
particularly important in the context of white-collar crime.  United States v. Sample, 901 F.3d 
1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th 2006) 
(“[T]he Congress that adopted the § 3553 sentencing factors emphasized the critical deterrent value 
of imprisoning serious white collar criminals, even where those criminals might themselves be 
unlikely to commit another offense.”); S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 76 (1983), reprinted in 1984 
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3259 (“The second purpose of sentencing is to deter others from committing 
the offense. This is particularly important in the area of white collar crime.”)). “[I]n enacting             
§ 3553, Congress was especially concerned that prior to the Sentencing Guidelines, major white-
collar criminals often were sentenced to small fines and little or no imprisonment.” United States 
v. Livesay, 587 F.3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).  
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 89

5 
 
Government program fraud is a deliberate and calculated crime of choice.  It is therefore 
more susceptible to general deterrence.  United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 
2006) (finding that crimes that are “rational, cool, and calculated” rather than “crimes of passion 
or opportunity” are “prime candidate[s] for general deterrence”) (citation omitted).  Due to the 
prevalence of governmental program fraud, the United States often lacks the resources to 
investigate and prosecute all bad actors.  Accordingly, general deterrence is a critically important 
to dissuading others from engaging in similar conduct.  See United States v. Morgan, 635 F. App'x 
423, 450 (10th Cir. 2015) (“General deterrence comes from a probability of conviction and 
significant consequences. If either is eliminated or minimized, the deterrent effect is 
proportionately minimized.”).  Defrauding governmental relief programs aimed at assisting those 
in need misuses taxpayer dollars and increases governmental cynicism.  This Court should impose 
a sentence to deter Defendant and others from repeating this type of criminal conduct. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 90

6 
 
IV. 
Conclusion 
Defendant used fraud and deception to profit from a generational tragedy.  A sentence 
within Defendant’s advisory guideline range of 4-10 months would be an appropriate sentence 
considering all the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  The United States does not intend to call 
any witnesses at the sentencing hearing and believes the hearing can be conducted in thirty 
minutes. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
WILLIAM S. THOMPSON 
United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
  
 
 
 
 
 
s/ M. Ryan Blackwell    
M. RYAN BLACKWELL  
Assistant United States Attorney  
WV State Bar No. 14031  
300 Virginia Street, East  
Room 4000  
Charleston, WV 25301  
Phone: 304-345-2200  
Fax: 304-347-5104  
            E-mail: ryan.blackwell@usdoj.gov  
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 91

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
It is hereby certified that the foregoing “UNITED STATES SENTENCING 
MEMORANDUM” has been electronically filed and service has been made on opposing counsel 
by virtue of such electronic filing this 27th day of April, 2023 to: 
 
Rachel Zimarowski 
    
 
 
Assistant Federal Public Defender 
Federal Public Defender’s Office 
300 Virginia Street, East 
Room 3400  
Charleston, West Virginia 25301  
Telephone: (304) 347-3350  
Facsimile: (304) 347-3356  
E-mail: Rachel_Zimarowski@fd.org 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/ M. Ryan Blackwell  
M. RYAN BLACKWELL  
Assistant United States Attorney  
WV State Bar No. 14031  
300 Virginia Street, East  
Room 4000  
Charleston, WV 25301  
Phone: 304-345-2200  
Fax: 304-347-5104  
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
E-mail: ryan.blackwell@usdoj.gov 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:22-cr-00205     Document 28     Filed 04/27/23     Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 92

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.235404.28.0.pdf

Size

163,764 bytes

SHA-256

d0a006fc58557c3cc6f2bbc00d3a6f7afd31fc4902b7ef94af1628c2ebb3b54f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.235404.28.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)