Sentencing Hearing Transcript — United States v. Chad Brandon Thomas

Summary

A transcript of sentencing proceedings held August 21, 2023 in United States v. Chad Brandon Thomas, No. 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW, before Judge J. Ronnie Greer in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Greeneville, filed January 25, 2024 as Document 79. The court states the defendant was convicted on Count 1 of the indictment charging wire fraud in violation of section 1343, and that the presentence report set a total offense level of 20, criminal history category I and a range of 33 to 41 months against a statutory maximum of 20 years. After a government objection is sustained, the court adopts an offense level of 21 and a range of 37 to 46 months. The government asks for 41 months, citing the section 3553(a) factors, a loss between $250,000 and $550,000 and three PPP loans of $31,200, $69,000 and $207,500. The transcript runs 51 pages.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
GREENEVILLE

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
GOVERNMENT,

5
6
7
8
9

VS.
CHAD BRANDON THOMAS,
DEFENDANT.
.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

DOCKET NO. CR-2-22-76

GREENEVILLE, TN
AUGUST 21, 2023
3:07 P.M.

10
11
12

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE J. RONNIE GREER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14

APPEARANCES:

15

FOR THE GOVERNMENT:

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF U.S. ATTORNEY
MAC D. HEAVENER, III, AUSA
220 WEST DEPOT STREET, SUITE 423
GREENEVILLE, TN 37743

FOR THE DEFENDANT:

DONNA M. BOLTON, ATTORNEY AT LAW
DONNA MICHAEL BOLTON, ESQ.
200 WEST UNAKA AVENUE
JOHNSON CITY, TN 37604

COURT REPORTER:

KAREN J. BRADLEY
RPR-RMR
U.S. COURTHOUSE
220 WEST DEPOT STREET
GREENEVILLE, TN 37743

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

PROCEEDINGS RECORDED BY MECHANICAL STENOGRAPHY, TRANSCRIPT
PRODUCED BY COMPUTER.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 888

Page 1 of 51

PageID


2

1

(CALL TO ORDER OF THE COURT AT 3:07 P.M.)

2

THE COURT:

3

MR. HEAVENER:

4

THE COURT:

5

CALL THIS CASE, PLACE.

6

THE CLERK:

7
8
9

GOOD AFTERNOON.
GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

MS. HOPSON, WOULD YOU

USA VERSUS CHAD BRANDON THOMAS,

CASE NUMBER CR-2-22-76.
THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

MR. THOMAS IS BEFORE

THE COURT THIS AFTERNOON FOR SENTENCING IN THIS CASE.

10

LET ME PULL IT UP ON MY COMPUTER, SORRY.

11

SORRY, I'M HAVING TROUBLE FINDING THE FILE.

12
13

HERE IT IS, NEVER MIND.
ALL RIGHT.

AS I SAID, MR. THOMAS IS BEFORE THE

14

COURT TODAY FOR SENTENCING IN THIS CASE.

15

CONVICTED ON COUNT 1 OF THE INDICTMENT IN THE CASE, WHICH

16

CHARGED HIM WITH WIRE FRAUD IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 18,

17

UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1343.

18

HE HAS BEEN

A PRESENTENCE REPORT WAS ORDERED.

19

HAS BEEN PREPARED.

20

DECEMBER 2, 2022.

THAT REPORT

IT WAS DISCLOSED TO THE PARTIES ON

21

IN THAT PRESENTENCE REPORT THE PROBATION

22

OFFICER ESTABLISHES A TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL OF 20, A

23

CRIMINAL HISTORY CATEGORY OF I, AND A RESULTING ADVISORY

24

GUIDELINE RANGE OF 33 TO 41 MONTHS.

25

BY STATUTE MR. THOMAS FACES A MAXIMUM TERM OF

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 889

Page 2 of 51

PageID


3

1

20 YEARS, AND THERE ARE SOME GOVERNMENT OBJECTIONS TO THE

2

PRESENTENCE REPORT.
ALL RIGHT.

3

MS. BOLTON, HAVE YOU RECEIVED AND

4

READ A COPY OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT AND THE ADDENDUM TO

5

THE REPORT?

6

MS. BOLTON:

I HAVE, YOUR HONOR.

7

THE COURT:

AND HAVE YOU REVIEWED THOSE AND

8

DISCUSSED THEM FULLY WITH MR. THOMAS?

9

MS, BOLTON:

YES.

10

THE COURT:

THANK YOU.

11

MR. THOMAS, HAVE YOU ALSO RECEIVED AND READ A

12

COPY OF THE PRESENTENCE REPORT AND THE ADDENDUM TO THE

13

REPORT?

14

THE DEFENDANT:

15

THE COURT:

16

HAVE YOU REVIEWED IT AND DISCUSSED

IT FULLY WITH YOUR ATTORNEY?

17

THE DEFENDANT:

18

THE COURT:

19

I HAVE.

YES, SIR.

AND HAVE YOU HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO

DO SO?

20

THE DEFENDANT:

21

THE COURT:

22

ALL RIGHT, MR. HEAVENER, LET'S TAKE UP THE

23
24
25

YES.

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU.

GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTIONS TO THE PRESENTENCE REPORT.
MR. HEAVENER:

YOUR HONOR, AT THE TIME THE

UNITED STATES FILED ITS OBJECTIONS, WE DID NOT KNOW THE,

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 890

Page 3 of 51

PageID


4

1

WHAT THE STATUS OF THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA

2

AGREEMENT WAS GOING TO BE, SO THE ONLY REAL OBJECTION THAT

3

I HAVE AT THIS POINT IS THE GOVERNMENT DID NOT FILE A

4

MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE ONE ADDITIONAL LEVEL FOR

5

ACCEPTANCE, I WOULD PERSIST IN THAT OBJECTION.

6

AN ADDITIONAL ONE LEVEL TO THE OFFENSE LEVEL.

THAT ADDS

I WILL WITHDRAW THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO

7
8

THE OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT.

9

ENHANCEMENT -- THAT OBJECTION WAS LARGELY BASED ON THE

10

IDEA THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN INCONSISTENT SWORN

11

TESTIMONY TO SUPPORT THE MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA, BUT

12

THAT NEVER MATERIALIZED, SO BASED ON THAT I WOULD WITHDRAW

13

THAT OBJECTION.

14

LEVEL.

SO I THINK IT'S JUST ONE ADDITIONAL

THE COURT:

15
16

UNDERSTAND.

17

3E1.1(2) --

THAT

ALL RIGHT, AND LET ME MAKE SURE I

THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL MOTION UNDER

18

MR. HEAVENER:

19

THE COURT:

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

-- SO THIS IS NOT REALLY IN THE

20

FORM OF AN OBJECTION IN THAT SENSE, IT'S MORE THAT THE

21

PROBATION OFFICER APPLIED IT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT MOTION.

22

MR. HEAVENER:

23

THE COURT:

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

MS. BOLTON, IS IT NOT

24

CORRECT THAT WITHOUT A GOVERNMENT MOTION, HE CANNOT GET

25

THAT POINT?

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 891

Page 4 of 51

PageID


5

1

MS. BOLTON:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

2

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

SO IT APPEARS I DON'T

3

HAVE ANY, ANY OPTION OTHER THAN TO SUSTAIN THE

4

GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION.

5

MS. BOLTON:

YES.

6

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT.

THEN THE GOVERNMENT'S

7

OBJECTION IS SUSTAINED.

THE ONE LEVEL REDUCTION IN

8

OFFENSE LEVEL REFLECTED IN PARAGRAPH 47 OF THE PRESENTENCE

9

REPORT DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GOVERNMENT

10

MOTION FOR THE ADDITIONAL POINT BASED ON ACCEPTANCE OF

11

RESPONSIBILITY.

12

RATHER THAN THE 20 REFLECTED IN THE PRESENTENCE REPORT, A

13

TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL OF 21 AND A CRIMINAL HISTORY CATEGORY

14

OF I RESULTS IN AN ADVISORY RANGE OF 37 TO 46 MONTHS.

THAT MEANS THE TOTAL OFFENSE LEVEL IS 21,

15

DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT, MS. BOLTON?

16

MS. BOLTON:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

17

THE COURT:

AND, MR. HEAVENER?

18

MR. HEAVENER:

19

THE COURT:

I DO, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

THEN WITH THAT CHANGE

20

THE COURT WILL ADOPT THIS PRESENTENCE REPORT AS THE

21

COURT'S FINDINGS IN THE CASE.

22

RANGE OF 37 TO -- I JUST SAID IT, HOW CAN I FORGET IT THAT

23

QUICKLY -- 37 TO 46 MONTHS AND A STATUTORY MAXIMUM OF 20

24

YEARS.

25

WE'LL APPLY AN ADVISORY

ALL RIGHT, MR. HEAVENER, LET ME HEAR YOUR

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 892

Page 5 of 51

PageID


6

1

ARGUMENT.

2

MR. HEAVENER:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

3

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE FILED A SENTENCING

4

MEMORANDUM IN WHICH THE UNITED STATES REQUESTS A SENTENCE

5

OF 41 MONTHS IN THIS CASE.

6

FACTORS SUPPORT THAT SENTENCE.

I BELIEVE THAT THE 3553(A)

THE FIRST FACTOR THAT THE GOVERNMENT WOULD

7
8

FOCUS ON IS THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE.

9

OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS A WIRE FRAUD OFFENSE, IT'S A SERIOUS

10

FELONY.

ITS STATUTORY MAXIMUM PENALTY IS 20 YEARS IN

11

PRISON.

SO THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE ITSELF IS VERY

12

SERIOUS.
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE ARE ALSO VERY

13
14

SERIOUS.

15

CAPTURED WITH THE GUIDELINE ENHANCEMENTS AND SOME ARE NOT.

16

I'LL BEGIN WITH THE GUIDELINE ENHANCEMENTS.

17

AMOUNT IS OBVIOUSLY THE THING THAT MAKES THIS OFFENSE THE

18

MOST SERIOUS UNDER THE GUIDELINES.

19

FOR A LOSS BETWEEN $250,000 AND $550,000; SO WHILE WITHIN

20

THAT RANGE IT'S CLOSER TO 250,000, IT'S STILL A VERY

21

SERIOUS LOSS.

22

SOME OF THE AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ARE

THE LOSS

THERE IS AN INCREASE

AND I WOULD ALSO NOTE THAT WITH REGARD TO THE

23

LOSS ITSELF, IT IS NOT A ONE TIME EVENT.

24

SEPARATE PAYROLL PROTECTION PROGRAM LOANS THAT CAUSED THAT

25

LOSS AMOUNT; AND IF YOU LOOK AT THOSE LOANS, THEY, THEY

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 893

THERE ARE THREE

Page 6 of 51

PageID


7

1

GET INCREMENTALLY MORE WITH EACH, EACH EXECUTION.

2

STARTED WITH A $31,200 LOAN FOR CHAD THOMAS ENTERPRISES,

3

THAT WAS ON MAY 3RD OF 2020.

4

ABOUT TWO WEEKS LATER ON MAY 18TH OF 2020 FOR $69,000, SO

5

HE ALMOST DOUBLED THE AMOUNT HE REQUESTED WITH THE SECOND

6

ONE; AND THEN THE THIRD ONE, WHICH IS THE LARGEST ONE, WAS

7

ABOUT A LITTLE OVER A MONTH LATER ON JULY 6TH OF 2020,

8

THAT'S THE KINGDOM OF GOD SUBMISSION THAT HE OBTAINED

9

$207,500 AS A PAYROLL PROTECTION PROGRAM LOAN.

10

COURT CAN SEE, NOT ONLY IS IT A SIGNIFICANT LOSS AMOUNT,

11

BUT IT'S GETTING INCREMENTALLY MORE EACH TIME HE DOES IT.
THE COURT:

12
13

SO IT

THE NEXT ONE WAS SUBMITTED

SO AS THE

MAY I ASK YOU A QUESTION THERE,

MR. HEAVENER?

14

MR. HEAVENER:

15

THE COURT:

YES, SIR.

WITH RESPECT TO KOG, IS IT THE

16

GOVERNMENT'S POSITION THAT THAT ENTIRE INCORPORATION WAS A

17

FRAUD?

18
19

MR. HEAVENER:

YES, SIR.

WELL, IT WAS AN

INCORPORATED BUSINESS, BUT IT WAS A SHAM COMPANY.

20

THE COURT:

SHAM COMPANY?

21

MR. HEAVENER:

22

THE COURT:

YES, SIR.

DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION TO

23

SUGGEST THAT IT WAS CREATED SIMPLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF

24

APPLYING FOR A PPP LOAN?

25

MR. HEAVENER:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

I BELIEVE THE DATE THAT IT WAS

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 894

Page 7 of 51

PageID


8

1

INCORPORATED WAS VERY CLOSE IN TIME TO THE SUBMISSION OF

2

THE APPLICATION.

3

THEMSELVES YOU EITHER HAD TO SUBMIT TAX RETURNS, LIKE 941

4

QUARTERLY TAX REPORTS THAT YOU WOULD FILE WITH THE IRS TO

5

SUPPORT YOUR APPLICATION, HE FILED FRAUDULENT 941 REPORTS

6

FOR THE FIRST TWO LOANS; BUT BECAUSE THE SECOND -- THE KOG

7

LOAN WAS, THE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED SO SOON IN TIME

8

BEFORE THE LOAN APPLICATION, THE SMALL BUSINESS ADMINIS-

9

TRATION WOULD ACCEPT A PAYROLL LEDGER, AND SO THAT LEDGER

10

WAS JUST RIPE WITH FRAUD, TO INCLUDE THE TWO TELEVISION

11

MINISTRY INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE LISTED AS EMPLOYEES OF KOG.

12

SO WE THINK ALL OF THAT WAS CREATED JUST TO APPLY FOR THE,

13

FOR THE PPP LOAN CIRCUMSTANTIALLY.

14

THE COURT:

15

MR. HEAVENER:

IN ADDITION, FOR THE PPP LOANS

ALL RIGHT.

GO AHEAD.

THEN THE SECOND AGGRAVATING

16

FACTOR, OF COURSE, WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, IS THE

17

SOPHISTICATION.

18

THERE WAS FALSE REPRESENTATIONS, AND ON TWO OF THEM THERE

19

WERE PHONY IRS DOCUMENTS, THE PHONY 941 REPORTS, AND THEN

20

ON THE KOG LOAN THERE WAS THAT PHONY LEDGER OF EMPLOYEES

21

SHOWING PAYMENTS BEING MADE TO, TO PROMINENT MINISTRY

22

LEADERS THAT OBVIOUSLY WERE NOT, SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL

23

PART OF THE GUIDELINE AGGRAVATION.

ON EACH OF THE THREE LOAN APPLICATIONS

24

THE LAST PART OF THE GUIDELINE AGGRAVATION IS

25

THE MISREPRESENTATION THAT THIS WAS ACTING ON BEHALF OF A

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 895

Page 8 of 51

PageID


9

1

CHARITABLE OR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.

AGAIN, FROM

2

EVERYTHING WE KNOW THERE WAS NO, EVER ANY BUSINESS BY KOG.

3

IT JUST GOT A $207,500 PPP LOAN, AND THAT WAS THE EXTENT

4

OF IT.

5

USE THE PROCEEDS.

IT WAS JUST A CONDUIT TO OBTAIN THAT LOAN AND THEN

WITH REGARD TO THE NONGUIDELINE AGGRAVATION, I

6
7

THINK IT'S AGGRAVATING THAT THIS WAS NOT JUST ONE PPP

8

LOAN, IT WAS MULTIPLE PPP LOANS.

9

THEY WERE INCREMENTALLY INCREASING EACH TIME HE DID IT.

AS I INDICATED EARLIER,

AND THEN, FINALLY, JUST THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE

10
11

PROGRAM.

THIS WAS RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A GLOBAL

12

PANDEMIC.

IT WAS A CONGRESSIONAL ATTEMPT TO PROVIDE

13

RELIEF TO STRUGGLING BUSINESSES OR BUSINESSES THAT HAD

14

BEEN REQUIRED TO SHUT DOWN.

15

USED AS A, A PERSONAL MECHANISM TO GET MONEY FROM THE

16

GOVERNMENT, AND SO THAT MAKES IT -- THAT'S NOT A GUIDELINE

17

AGGRAVATOR, BUT WE CERTAINLY THINK IT'S AN AGGRAVATOR

18

UNDER THE 3553(A) FACTORS.

IT WASN'T DESIGNED TO, TO BE

TURNING TO MR. THOMAS' HISTORY AND CHARAC-

19
20

TERISTICS.

YOUR HONOR, HE DOES HAVE ZERO CRIMINAL HISTORY

21

POINTS.

22

OTHER CASES.

23

WILL TAKE EFFECT IN NOVEMBER, DOES PROVIDE FOR A TWO LEVEL

24

DEPARTURE.

25

ONLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE LAW YET, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THE

I KNOW I'VE HAD THIS ISSUE WITH THE COURT IN
THE GUIDELINE CHANGE THAT'S CONTEMPLATED, OR

I WOULD ARGUE AGAINST THAT IN THIS CASE, NOT

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79 Filed 01/25/24
#: 896

Page 9 of 51

PageID


10

1

CONTEMPLATED GUIDELINE ALSO HAS A APPLICATION NOTE THAT

2

TALKS ABOUT UPWARD DEPARTURES, AND IT SAYS, AN UPWARD

3

DEPARTURE MAY BE WARRANTED IF AN ADJUSTMENT UNDER THE

4

GUIDELINES SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERREPRESENTS THE SERIOUSNESS

5

OF THE DEFENDANT'S CRIMINAL HISTORY, AND THEN IT GOES ON

6

TO PROVIDE EXAMPLES.

WE BELIEVE THAT IT DOESN'T APPLY YET

7

CLEARLY UNDER THE LAW.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE

8

WHERE A VARIANCE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK

9

AT HIS HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS, WHILE HE HAS ZERO

10

CRIMINAL HISTORY POINTS, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ARRESTS

11

THAT DEAL WITH TWO, TWO DIFFERENT AREAS THAT I WOULD LIKE

12

TO ADDRESS.

13

THE FIRST IS THEFT AND FRAUD RELATED OFFENSES.

14

IN PARAGRAPH 61 AND 63 HE HAS ARRESTS FOR BAD CHECKS.

15

PARAGRAPH 62 HE HAS AN ARREST FOR SOME TYPE OF CONSTRUC-

16

TION FRAUD, AND THEN IN PARAGRAPH 66 IT'S BAD CHECKS AND

17

THEFT OVER $1,000.

18

RECOGNIZE THAT, BUT CERTAINLY THE NATURE OF THOSE ARRESTS

19

SHOWS THAT HE'S NOT A TRUE -- WHILE HE'S A TRUE ZERO POINT

20

OFFENDER, HE'S NOT SOMEBODY THAT'S NEVER HAD ANY

21

INTERACTION WITH THE LAW.

22

IN

NOW, THOSE ARE NOT CONVICTIONS, I

THE SECOND AREA THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THAT

23

REALLY UNDERSTATES HIS -- TO APPLY THAT ZERO POINT

24

OFFENDER WOULD BE IMPROPER HERE IS THE ISSUES WITH REGARD

25

TO HE AND HIS EX SPOUSE.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

THERE'S A THREAD THAT HAS

Document 79
PageID #: 897

Filed 01/25/24

Page 10 of 51


11

1

NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PPP FRAUD IN THIS CASE, BUT HE AND

2

HIS SPOUSE AFTER THEIR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE, SHE

3

OBTAINED A PROTECTION ORDER, AND THE, THE TRESPASS ARREST

4

SET FORTH IN PARAGRAPH 68 AND 69, THEY RELATE TO THAT,

5

THAT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR PROTECTIVE ORDER THAT WAS ISSUED

6

BY THE STATE COURT.

7

THE REASON I RAISE THAT IS BECAUSE WHILE

8

MR. THOMAS WAS UNDERGOING HIS, HIS COMPETENCY EVALUATION

9

IN THIS COURT, A LETTER WAS SENT FROM THE STATE OF

10

OKLAHOMA BY MR. THOMAS, OR AT LEAST PURPORTING TO BE BY

11

MR. THOMAS, CONTACTING THE EX SPOUSE.

12

LOOKED INTO THIS BECAUSE IF THAT LETTER HAD BEEN SENT FROM

13

A FEDERAL FACILITY, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A NEW FEDERAL

14

CRIME, QUITE FRANKLY, AND WE WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED PUR-

15

SUING AN INDICTMENT FOR THAT FOR VIOLATING THE PROTECTIVE

16

ORDER USING EITHER FROM THE FEDERAL PROPERTY OR IN

17

INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

18

ACTUALLY SENT FROM A STATE HOLDING FACILITY IN THE STATE

19

OF OKLAHOMA.

20

WITH A COUNTY JAIL, AND SO THE MAILING OF THAT LETTER DID

21

NOT TAKE PLACE FROM A FEDERAL FACILITY.

WE DID NOT -- I

WE DETERMINED THAT THAT LETTER WAS

I GUESS BOP HAS CONTRACTS WITH, LIKE WE DO,

22

I SIMPLY RAISE THAT TO SAY THERE IS A SIGNIFI-

23

CANT PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC STRING IN THIS CASE IN TERMS

24

OF NOT REALLY ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE PPP LOAN, BUT JUST

25

THE DOMESTIC SITUATION WITH THE WIFE, WE THINK THAT THAT'S

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 898

Filed 01/25/24

Page 11 of 51


12

1

SOMETHING THAT THE SENTENCE NEEDS TO TAKE ACCOUNT OF IN

2

TERMS OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC FROM FUTURE CRIMES.
WHICH THEN BRINGS ME TO THE, THE NEED THAT THE

3
4

SENTENCE HAS TO ADDRESS, THE NEED FOR -- TO REFLECT THE

5

SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE.

6

OFFENSE GIVEN THE NATURE OF THIS THEFT.

7

LOAN THEFT.

WE THINK THIS IS A SERIOUS
AGAIN, IT'S A PPP

WE THINK THAT THE SENTENCE NEEDS TO PROMOTE

8
9

BOTH GENERAL AND SPECIFIC DETERRENCE, AND, OF COURSE, IN

10

THIS -- IT'S NOT A CASE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT WOULD NOT

11

HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT SPECIFIC DETERRENCE, WE DO, WE HAVE A

12

CONCERN ABOUT SPECIFIC DETERRENCE AND THINK THAT THE

13

SENTENCE NEEDS TO ADDRESS BOTH THOSE ISSUES.
AND THEN THE NEED TO PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE

14
15

LAW.

16

AN EXISTING STATE COURT PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PLACE WOULD

17

SHOW SOME LEVEL OF DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW, AND WE THINK

18

THAT THE SENTENCE NEEDS TO REFLECT THAT.

19

AGAIN, THE IDEA OF SENDING A LETTER TO A SPOUSE WITH

IN ADDITION, I WOULD BE REMISS TO NOT RAISE THE

20

MENTAL HEALTH COMPONENT TO THIS CASE.

21

BLOWN COMPETENCY HEARING.

22

WAS METHAMPHETAMINE-INDUCED MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.

23

PROBLEM, OF COURSE, IS WHEN MR. THOMAS IS OUT, THERE'S NO

24

REAL CONTROL OVER HIM TAKING METHAMPHETAMINE AND GETTING

25

BACK INTO THAT SAME SITUATION.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

THERE WAS A FULL-

THE RESULT OF THAT WAS THAT IT

Document 79
PageID #: 899

Filed 01/25/24

THE

Page 12 of 51


13

I READ WITH PARTICULAR INTEREST THE LETTER THAT

1
2

THE ACCOUNTANT WROTE.

I'VE NEVER SEEN A LETTER WITH AN

3

ACCOUNTANT SAYING -- YOU KNOW, DESCRIBING THAT BEHAVIOR;

4

AND SO THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT I JUST RAISE AS CONCERNS FOR

5

PROTECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE THINK THE SENTENCE

6

NEEDS TO ADDRESS THAT.

7

FINALLY, THE ONLY OTHER SENTENCING FACTOR I

8

WOULD HIGHLIGHT IS THE NEED FOR THE SENTENCE TO ADDRESS

9

RESTITUTION.

10

ALL THESE PPP LOAN PROCEEDS, SO WE WERE ABLE TO SEIZE A

11

SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO THE, THE

12

INDICTMENT.

13

$161,938.01, SO THAT LEAVES A REMAINING BALANCE OF

14

$145,761.99.

15

MONEY JUDGMENT THIS MORNING, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THE

16

TARDINESS ON THAT, YOUR HONOR, WE -- THE -- BECAUSE OF THE

17

PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THIS CASE, THERE WERE NOT THE NORMAL

18

COURT DEADLINES THAT WERE IN PLACE THAT WE TYPICALLY

19

OPERATE OFF OF, BUT WE'VE SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF

20

FORFEITURE AND WOULD SIMPLY REQUEST THE COURT TO ORDER

21

FORFEITURE IN THAT AMOUNT.

FORTUNATELY FOR MR. THOMAS HE HAD NOT SPENT

IN FACT, WE ADMINISTRATIVELY FORFEITED ABOUT

WE SUBMITTED AN ORDER OF FORFEITURE FOR

22

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

23

THE COURT:

24
25

ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU,

MR. HEAVENER.
ALL RIGHT.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

MS. BOLTON, EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE

Document 79
PageID #: 900

Filed 01/25/24

Page 13 of 51


14

1

LATE, I RECEIVED YOUR SENTENCING MEMO AND THE LETTERS THAT

2

WERE SUBMITTED, AND I'VE READ THOSE.

3

MS. BOLTON:

I APOLOGIZE, YOUR HONOR.

4

I WANT -- BEFORE I HIT ON ALL OF THE THINGS

5

THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS SAID, I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THIS

6

ISSUE OF THIS VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.

7

SOME REASON THIS SEEMS TO GET EVERYBODY ALL RILED UP.

8

IS PROVEN HE HAD NO NOTICE THAT THAT ORDER OF PROTECTION

9

HAD BEEN REINSTATED WHEN HE WROTE HIS DAUGHTER A

10

VALENTINE'S DAY LETTER.

11

THE DAUGHTER, AND EVERYONE IS REAL WILD ABOUT THAT ONE

12

ISSUE OF ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

13

WAS UNAWARE THAT IT HAD BEEN REISSUED.

14

SULLIVAN COUNTY HAS CONFIRMED THAT ON THE 24TH I'LL BRING

15

MORE STUFF TO THEM AND THAT WILL BE DISMISSED.

FOR
IT

IT WASN'T TO HIS WIFE, IT WAS TO

HE

THE COURT IN

16

THE TRESPASSING CHARGES RELATING TO ANY OF THIS

17

STUFF HAS ALREADY BEEN DISMISSED; AND SO I KNOW THAT'S THE

18

SMALLEST FISH IN THIS PAN WE'RE FRYING, BUT IT IS NOT A

19

SIGN OF HIS DISRESPECT FOR THE LAW, IT WAS HIM BELIEVING

20

THAT IT HAD EXPIRED, AND HE WROTE HIS DAUGHTER A

21

VALENTINE'S DAY LETTER, THAT'S IT.

22

AND THEN, NOW THAT I'VE GOT THAT OUT OF THE

23

WAY, IT IS A BIG DEAL ON WHAT HIS MENTAL STATE WAS.

24

ALMOST DIDN'T SEND MR. BLACKLEY'S LETTER IN BECAUSE AS A

25

DEFENSE ATTORNEY I READ THAT, AND I PROBABLY HAD THE SAME

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 901

Filed 01/25/24

AND I

Page 14 of 51


15

1

REACTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAD; AND I SPOKE WITH HIS

2

PARENTS, LIKE I DON'T LIKE THAT; BUT IT'S ALSO, IF YOU'LL

3

LOOK AT THE TIMING OF IT, IT'S RELEVANT IN WHAT HIS STATE

4

OF MIND WAS BACK THEN.

5

BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS DOING

6

WITH AN ALREADY FRAGILE MIND FOR WHATEVER REASON IN THE

7

EARLY PARTS OF 2020.

8

PEOPLE THAT MADE A LOT OF STUPID DECISIONS DURING THAT

9

TIME FOR A LOT OF DIFFERENT REASONS; BUT IF YOUR MARRIAGE

10

IS FALLING APART, YOUR BUSINESS IS FALLING APART AND YOUR

11

DAUGHTER HAS GOT -- HAD JUST WENT THROUGH THIS TRAUMATIC

12

SURGERY, THERE WAS A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON.

WE'RE NOT MAKING EXCUSES FOR IT,

I KNOW A LOT OF VERY SMART, DECENT

13

HIS INITIAL PPP LOAN HAD -- WAS GOOD INTENDED,

14

AND IT JUST WENT OFF THE RAILS, AND THEY WERE ALL DONE IN

15

A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME; BUT I DON'T WANT THE COURT TO NOT

16

PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT HIS MENTAL STATE OF MIND WAS, IT IS

17

OBVIOUS IT WAS BAD.

18

DECISIONS; AND I KNOW WE TALK ABOUT SOPHISTICATED SCHEMES,

19

ANYBODY WITH A FINGER COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR A PPP LOAN

20

FOR BETTER OR WORSE DURING THAT TIME; BUT THAT'S

21

IMPORTANT.

22

IT WAS OBVIOUS HE WASN'T MAKING GREAT

I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT.
AND EVEN THOUGH HE DOES HAVE A MINIMAL CRIMINAL

23

HISTORY AND ZERO POINTS, THE ONES THAT THE GOVERNMENT

24

POINTED OUT WERE FROM 2004 AND 2006, AND THEY ARE CRIMES

25

OF DISHONESTY OR WHATNOT, BUT IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, AND

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 902

Filed 01/25/24

Page 15 of 51


16

1

HE WAS GIVEN NO POINTS ON THEM, SO I THINK THAT HIS

2

MINIMAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IS VERY, VERY IMPORTANT

3

REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY WERE FOR.
FOR THE MOST PART HE LIVED A STRAIGHT AND

4
5

NARROW LIFE.

6

HIMSELF.

7

AND IT WAS AN ABNORMAL THING THAT HE DID, AND HE HAS COME

8

TO TERMS WITH IT; AND, YEAH, I'M NOT GOING -- WE'RE NOT

9

GOING TO GET UPSET ABOUT ONE POINT THAT THE GOVERNMENT

10

DIDN'T REQUEST, BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS.

11

HAPPENING BEFORE I GOT INVOLVED IN THIS CASE; BUT RIGHT

12

NOW MR. THOMAS STANDS HERE OR SITS HERE, AND HE IS SEEKING

13

FOR A SENTENCE AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THE GUIDELINE RANGE.

14

THERE'S NO REASON FOR HIM TO BE IN THAT LONG.

HE IS

15

SMART.

HE'S A

16

MODEL STUDENT, OR, YEAH, MODEL PRISONER.

17

MONEY WHILE HE'S BEEN IN THERE, OVER $1,400 HE'S ABLE TO

18

PUT TOWARDS WHATEVER HE OWES.

19

WHEN HE GETS OUT, AND HE UNDERSTANDS THAT.

20

HE WORKED FOR HIS FATHER, HE WORKED FOR

THIS WAS AN ABNORMAL THING THAT HAPPENED TO HIM,

IT WAS ALL

HE HAS WORKED WHILE HE'S BEEN IN JAIL.

HE'S EARNED

HE WILL BE A BETTER PERSON

WHEN I FIRST MET HIM, I THINK I WAS THE THIRD

21

ATTORNEY MAYBE, WHEN I FIRST MET HIM, THIS IS A CASE WHERE

22

YOU JUST KIND OF, UGH, YOU KNOW, I'M THE THIRD ATTORNEY.

23

EVEN FROM THE TIME I MET HIM UNTIL NOW HE'S MORE CLEAR.

24

THE LONGER HE IS STABILIZED WITH HIS MEDICATION, THE

25

LONGER THAT HE IS NO LONGER ON METHAMPHETAMINE OR SELF

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 903

Filed 01/25/24

Page 16 of 51


17

1

MEDICATING IN ANY WAY, THE REAL CHAD THOMAS HAS COME BACK.

2

HIS PARENTS HAVE NOTICED IT IN PHONE CALLS.

3

IT, AND I BARELY KNOW HIM.

4

THROW THE BOOK AT OVER A PPP LOAN.

5

A DOUBT, BUT A LOT OF REALLY GOOD INTENDED PEOPLE MESS

6

THOSE UP THEMSELVES; NOT TO THIS LEVEL, OF COURSE, BUT

7

THEY DID.

8

RECAPTURE A GREAT DEAL OF THE MONEY; BUT, YOUR HONOR,

9

WE'RE JUST SEEKING, AGAIN, A SENTENCE AT THE VERY BOTTOM

10

OF THE GUIDELINES.

11

I'VE NOTICED

THIS IS NOT THE FELLOW TO
IT IS SERIOUS, WITHOUT

AND IT IS GOOD THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ABLE TO

THE COURT:

YOU SEEM TO DRAW SOME DISTINCTION

12

BETWEEN THE FIRST PPP LOAN AND THE OTHERS, WILL YOU

13

CLARIFY THAT TO ME?

14
15

MS. BOLTON:

ONLY, ONLY BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE

IS KINGDOM OF GOD, AND IT'S GOT -- IT WAS TRULY CREATED --

16

THE COURT:

SO IT WAS COMPLETELY A SHAM?

17

MS. BOLTON:

YES.

18

THE COURT:

AND THE FIRST ONE WAS AN ACTUAL

19

CORPORATION THAT HAD BEEN USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES?

20

MS. BOLTON:

YES.

21

THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT, AND WHAT ABOUT THE

22

MIDDLE ONE, IT WAS A SHAM TOO?

23
24
25

MS. BOLTON:

I BELIEVE THAT ONE ALSO HAD AN

INCORPORATED BUSINESS; RIGHT?
MR. HEAVENER:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

IT DID.

I BELIEVE ONE OF THEM WAS A SOLE

Document 79
PageID #: 904

Filed 01/25/24

Page 17 of 51


18

1

PROPRIETORSHIP, YOUR HONOR.

2

MAY HAVE BEEN.

I THINK THE TRIANGLE GROUP

THE COURT:

THE TRIANGLE WAS A SOLE PROPRIETOR,

5

ALL RIGHT.

ANYTHING ELSE?

6

MS. BOLTON:

NO.

7

THE COURT:

MR. THOMAS, COME UP TO THE PODIUM,

3
4

8

ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE, WITH YOUR ATTORNEY.
MR. THOMAS, IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO SAY

9
10

TO THE COURT TODAY BEFORE SENTENCE IS IMPOSED?
THE DEFENDANT:

11

I WAS GOING THROUGH, I

12

APOLOGIZE, I WAS GOING THROUGH A LOT OF MENTAL STRESS, AND

13

MY DAUGHTER, SHE FELLEN OFF REALLY ILL WITH HER BACK BACK

14

IN 2019.

15

ACCOUNTING STUFF, WE HAD AN ACCOUNTANT, BUT OUR

16

PAPERWORK -- I HAD STARTED LETTING, I HAD 15 OR 20

17

PROJECTS, THEY STARTED TAPERING DOWN, AND WE JUST COULDN'T

18

PULL TOGETHER ALL THE PAPERWORK AND FINANCIAL STUFF, AND

19

I'M SORRY.

20

MY NOW EXWIFE WAS TRYING TO DO SOME OF THE

THE COURT:

MR. THOMAS, IS IT GOING TO HAPPEN

21

AGAIN IF YOUR DAUGHTER HAS ANOTHER ILLNESS OR IF A

22

BUSINESS GOES INTO FAILURE?

23

THE DEFENDANT:

24

THE COURT:

25

NO, SIR.

WHY NOT?

HOW CAN YOU ASSURE ME

THAT IT'S NOT?

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 905

Filed 01/25/24

Page 18 of 51


19

1

THE DEFENDANT:

I'M A MUCH BETTER PERSON.

I

2

MEAN, I'VE WENT THROUGH, HAD MULTIPLE BUSINESSES AND

3

DIFFERENT TRAGEDIES, DIFFERENT THINGS.

4

OUT OF CHARACTER FOR ME FOR WHAT HAD HAPPENED.

5

COVID, MY DAUGHTER AND JUST THE STRESS FROM EVERYTHING, I

6

WAS A BASKET CASE.

7

THE COURT:

IT'S COMPLETELY
BETWEEN

WELL, MY FEAR IS, MR. THOMAS, THAT

8

EVERYBODY HAS BAD CIRCUMSTANCES IN THEIR LIFE, I MEAN,

9

BUSINESSES FAIL --

10

THE DEFENDANT:

11

THE COURT:

SURE.

-- PEOPLE CLOSE TO YOU GET SICK,

12

ALL KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN, SOMEBODY CLOSE TO YOU DIES,

13

ANY NUMBER OF THINGS, AND WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT

14

IF THAT'S WHAT CAUSED THIS BEHAVIOR, THAT THE NEXT TIME

15

YOUR CIRCUMSTANCES BECOME DIFFICULT, YOU WILL DO SOMETHING

16

SIMILAR, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR ASSURANCE THAT

17

YOU WILL NOT DO.

18

THE DEFENDANT:

19

THE COURT:

20
21
22
23
24
25

I WILL NOT.

WELL, BUT I NEED MORE THAN JUST

YOUR STATEMENT.
THE DEFENDANT:

I UNDERSTAND HOW TO HANDLE THE

MENTAL CRISIS AND STUFF THAT I HAD WENT THROUGH.
THE COURT:

AND HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THEM

DIFFERENTLY?
THE DEFENDANT:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

WELL, I MEAN, BETWEEN PRAYER

Document 79
PageID #: 906

Filed 01/25/24

Page 19 of 51


20

1

AND GOD AND, AND JUST BEING ABLE TO COPE AND DEAL WITH

2

THINGS A LOT BETTER.

3

HAD LOST MY HEALTH BACK IN 2012 TO 2018, A LOT OF THINGS

4

HAD HAPPENED THAT LED UP TO FALLING APART.
THE COURT:

5

I'VE BEEN WORKING OUT AND STUFF.

I

MR. THOMAS, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT,

6

THOSE ARE NOTHING MORE THAN EXCUSES.

7

MISSING FROM ALL OF THAT IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF YOUR ROLE IN

8

THIS OFFENSE.

9

ANYTHING OF THAT SORT --

10

THE DEFENDANT:

11

THE COURT:

12

THE DEFENDANT:

13

YOUR HONOR.

15

SURE.

-- BUT GOD DIDN'T DO THIS.
I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY,

IT WAS A HUGE MISTAKE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT IT WAS A

HUGE MISTAKE.
DID YOU READ YOUR ACCOUNTANT'S LETTER

16
17

I DON'T DISCOUNT THE POWER OF GOD OR

THE COURT:

14

THE THING THAT'S

CAREFULLY?

18

THE DEFENDANT:

19

THE COURT:

MY ATTORNEY READ IT TO ME.

DO YOU REALIZE THAT HE SAID IN THAT

20

LETTER THAT HE WAS AFRAID TO GO DEEPER INTO YOUR PROPERTY

21

WITH YOU BECAUSE -- OR DEEPER INTO THE PROPERTY WHERE HE

22

WAS TALKING TO YOU BECAUSE HE WAS AFRAID FOR HIS OWN

23

SAFETY, THAT HE THOUGHT YOU WERE DANGEROUS, THAT YOU

24

REPRESENTED A THREAT TO HIM?

25

THE DEFENDANT:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

YES, SIR.

Document 79
PageID #: 907

Filed 01/25/24

Page 20 of 51


21

1

THE COURT:

WAS IT THAT BAD?

2

THE DEFENDANT:

I WAS STRESSED OUT JUST TRYING

3

TO PULL EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

4

STRESSED OUT.

6

EVERYTHING FELL APART.

THE COURT:

5

WHAT ABOUT THE METHAMPHETAMINE USE?

I READ THE BOP'S --

7

THE DEFENDANT:

8

THE COURT:

9

I MEAN, I WAS IN -- I WAS

I'M DONE WITH THAT.

WELL, WE CAN'T TALK AT THE SAME

TIME.

10

THE DEFENDANT:

11

THE COURT:

SORRY.

I READ THE BOP'S EVALUATION REPORT,

12

THEY THOUGHT THAT ALL OF THIS WAS METHAMPHETAMINE INDUCED.

13

SO WHAT STARTED THE METHAMPHETAMINE USE?

14

THE DEFENDANT:

15

I'M TRYING TO THINK BACK.

16

STUDY WITH, AND THEN IT JUST LED TO MORE AND MORE.

17

DONE WITH IT FOR SURE.

18

THE COURT:

19

STUDY WITH, TO KEEP YOU AWAKE?

20
21

USE, JUST COPING.

I MEAN, I,

I USED, STARTED UP USING IT TO
I'M

WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU USED IT TO

THE DEFENDANT:

YEAH.

I WAS READING AND

STUDYING A LOT AT THE TIME, 2020, END OF 2019.

22

THE COURT:

WHAT KIND OF READING AND STUDYING?

23

THE DEFENDANT:

SCRIPTURAL STUFF, MEDICAL

24

STUFF, A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT MY DAUGHTER'S ILLNESS AND

25

THINGS, TOWARDS THE END OF 2019, 2020.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 908

Filed 01/25/24

Page 21 of 51


22

THE COURT:

1
2

METHAMPHETAMINE AT THE TIME?
THE DEFENDANT:

3
4

SOME OF IT WAS PHENTERMINE AND

ADDERAL.
THE COURT:

5
6

AND WHERE WERE YOU GETTING

I DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT THAT, I SAID

WHERE WERE YOU GETTING METHAMPHETAMINE?

7

THE DEFENDANT:

8

WORKED FOR ME PREVIOUSLY.

9

THE COURT:

10

THE DEFENDANT:

11

THE COURT:

I THINK SOMEBODY THAT HAD

YOU THINK THAT?
YES, SIR.

AND HOW WERE YOU PAYING FOR IT?

12

KNOW WHAT METHAMPHETAMINE COSTS, HOW WERE YOU PAYING FOR

13

IT?

14

THE DEFENDANT:

15

THE COURT:

16

THE DEFENDANT:

17
18
19

CASH.

WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF THE CASH?
MONEY THAT I HAD COMING IN.

HAD SOLD SOME TOOLS AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I HAD HAD.
THE COURT:

DID THAT CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR

BUSINESS FAILURE?

20

THE DEFENDANT:

21

THE COURT:

YES.

IT STANDS TO REASON THAT IT DID.

22

SO YOU BEGAN TO USE METH, YOUR BUSINESS FAILED, YOUR

23

DAUGHTER GOT SICK, COVID HAPPENED, AND ALL OF THAT WAS

24

SORT OF A PERFECT STORM THAT CAUSED YOU TO COMMIT THESE

25

OFFENSES, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME?

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

I

Document 79
PageID #: 909

Filed 01/25/24

Page 22 of 51

I


23

1

THE DEFENDANT:

2

THE COURT:

YES.

I SAW IN THAT REPORT THAT YOU WERE

3

PRESCRIBED MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS AT ONE TIME, BUT YOU,

4

YOU WOULD NOT STAY ON THEM.
THE DEFENDANT:

5

WHY NOT?
I WAS HOMELESS AND I COULDN'T

6

AFFORD THEM AFTER -- WHEN THEY FROZE OUR BANK ACCOUNTS, I

7

BECAME HOMELESS, PROBABLY ABOUT SIX MONTHS, EIGHT MONTHS

8

OR SO AFTER.
THE COURT:

9
10

ACCOUNTS, BECAUSE OF THESE FRAUDULENT LOANS?
THE DEFENDANT:

11
12

AND WHY DID THEY FREEZE YOUR BANK

YEAH.

THE BANK FROZE THE

ACCOUNTS.
THE COURT:

13

YOUR MOTHER'S LETTER INDICATED THAT

14

THERE WAS, THERE WERE SUICIDAL TENDENCIES IN THE PAST,

15

THAT THERE WAS SCHIZOPHRENIA, THERE WAS ANXIETY, BIPOLAR

16

DISORDER, HAVE YOU BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH ALL OF THOSE?
THE DEFENDANT:

17

AT DIFFERENT POINTS; BUT SINCE

18

THE FT. WORTH, TEXAS, I'VE BEEN CLEARED OF ALL THAT.

19

NOT BEEN ON ANY MEDICATIONS AND BEEN DOING WELL.
THE COURT:

20

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE

21

EVALUATION THAT WAS DONE IN FT. WORTH?

22

THE DEFENDANT:

23

THE COURT:

24
25

I'VE

YES, SIR.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT CLEARED YOU OF

ALL THAT?
THE DEFENDANT:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

SINCE THEN I'VE NOT BEEN TAKING

Document 79
PageID #: 910

Filed 01/25/24

Page 23 of 51


24

1

ANY -- BACK IN 2020 WHEN I WENT TO, I THINK IT WAS

2

WOODRIDGE THE FIRST TIME, THEY HAD MISDIAGNOSED ME, GAVE

3

ME SOME MEDICATIONS, AND THEN -- IT SHOWS THAT IN THE

4

MEDICAL REPORTS; AND THEN WHEN I WENT THE SECOND TIME, I

5

HAD TALKED TO THAT DOCTOR, AND THEY CHANGED THE

6

MEDICATIONS; AND PART OF -- I WAS HAVING ISSUES CLEARLY

7

THINKING.

8

TO OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, I THINK IS WHEN IT WAS, THEY GIVE ME

9

SOME KIND OF NEW SHOT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

10

A LOT OF UPS AND DOWNS AND EVERYTHING IN THAT TIME PERIOD

11

WITH THE MEDICATION AND TRYING TO GET THOSE THINGS RIGHT.
THE COURT:

12
13

MY DAUGHTER HAD SURGERY IN APRIL, SO FROM APRIL

THERE WAS

WELL, PART OF MY POINT IS THIS, I

THINK EVERY ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONS IS TREATABLE --

14

THE DEFENDANT:

15

THE COURT:

MM-HMM.

-- SOME WITH MEDICATIONS, BUT THE

16

MEDICATIONS DON'T DO A THING IF YOU DON'T TAKE THE

17

MEDICATION; AND SO IT SOUNDS LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME,

18

MR. THOMAS, IS THAT YOU'VE HAD THOSE CONDITIONS, BUT YOU

19

DON'T THINK YOU NEED ANY MEDICATION AT THE MOMENT, IS THAT

20

WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?
THE DEFENDANT:

21

NO, I HAD TAKEN THE MEDICA-

22

TIONS.

23

AFTER THE 30 DAY WHEN IT FIRST WAS PRESCRIBED.

24

WAS A FINANCIAL PROBLEM, NOT AN ACT IN TAKING THEM.

25

IT WAS GETTING THEM, PAYING FOR THEM TO GET THEM

THE COURT:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

MOSTLY IT

NOW, I REALIZE THAT THERE IS A

Document 79
PageID #: 911

Filed 01/25/24

Page 24 of 51


25

1

PENDING CRIMINAL CHARGE RELATED TO THAT CASE IN WISE

2

COUNTY, VIRGINIA WITH A DATE OF ARREST OF DECEMBER 17,

3

2021, SO I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU TO SAY ANYTHING THAT

4

MIGHT INCRIMINATE YOU IN THAT CASE, BUT IS THE ALLEGATION

5

THERE THAT YOU WERE ON DRUGS OR THAT YOU WERE ON ALCOHOL

6

OR SOMETHING ELSE?

7

MS. BOLTON:

ONE MOMENT, YOUR HONOR.

8

THE COURT:

IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT WERE YOU

9

ACCUSED OF BEING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF?
THE DEFENDANT:

10
11

ANYTHING.

12

ANYTHING DONE.

13

I DON'T THINK IT STATED

THEY -- THERE WAS NO BLOOD ALCOHOL TEST OR

THE COURT:

WELL, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, "UNDER

14

THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS", SO THAT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT IT

15

WAS NOT ALCOHOL.

16

THE DEFENDANT:

WELL, I WAS PARKED ON THE, ON A

17

STRIP JOB FOR THREE DAYS, AND MY DAD HAD CALLED, SAID SOME

18

ERRATIC BEHAVIOR.

19

OF, AND HE HAD COME BOOSTED THE TRUCK OFF, AND THEN I HAD

20

NOT MADE IT HOME BY LIKE ONE OR TWO O'CLOCK, AND HE HAD

21

COME BACK UP THERE, AND THEN I -- AFTER THAT, I REMEMBER

22

THAT, AND I REMEMBER THEN, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER -- I

23

WASN'T USING ANY DRUGS AT THAT TIME.

I ACTUALLY WAS HYPOTHERMIC THE MORNING

24

THE COURT:

25

THE DEFENDANT:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

AND THEN YOU -I WAS HYPOTHERMIC THAT MORNING,

Document 79
PageID #: 912

Filed 01/25/24

Page 25 of 51


26

1

IT WAS LIKE 20 DEGREES AND THE TRUCK STARTER DIDN'T

2

WORK.
THE COURT:

3

AND THEN ACCORDING TO THE

4

PRESENTENCE REPORT THERE WERE TWO OCCASIONS WHEN YOU DID

5

NOT APPEAR, AND YOU'VE NOW BEEN CHARGED WITH BOTH FAILURES

6

TO APPEAR; IS THAT RIGHT?

7

THE DEFENDANT:

8

MS. BOLTON:

9

I BELIEVE HE WAS IN CUSTODY DURING

THAT TIME.

10

THE DEFENDANT:

11

THE COURT:

12
13
14
15
16

WHAT CASE IS THAT ON?

YEAH.

IN FEBRUARY OF 2022 AND MAY OF

2022.
THE DEFENDANT:

I WAS IN CUSTODY IN -- WAIT,

WHAT'S THAT?
(OFF-THE-RECORD DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE DEFENDANT AND
HIS ATTORNEY)

17

THE DEFENDANT:

18

THE COURT:

I'M NOT SURE.

MR. THOMAS, ASIDE AND APART FROM

19

WHAT THE BOP EVALUATION SAYS AND WHAT YOUR MOTHER'S LETTER

20

SAID, IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT YOU ARE SUFFERING FROM SOME

21

SORT OF EMOTIONAL PROBLEMS AND/OR MENTAL ILLNESS, AND IT

22

IS ALSO APPARENT TO ME THAT YOU HAVE YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND

23

WHEN IT COMES TO THAT, AND I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW THAT

24

AS LONG AS YOU HAVE UNTREATED MENTAL CONDITIONS YOU ARE AT

25

HIGH RISK TO COMMIT CRIMES.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 913

Filed 01/25/24

Page 26 of 51


27

1

IT ALSO APPEARS TO ME THAT YOU ARE IN DENIAL

2

ABOUT THE COMMISSION OF THESE OFFENSES WHICH BROUGHT YOU

3

HERE, THESE FRAUDULENT PPP LOANS.

4

CAUSE PEOPLE TO COMMIT CRIMINAL ACTS.

5

EXPLAIN WHAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME, BUT THOSE CRIMINAL

6

ACTS WERE CAUSED, AS YOU HAVE ADMITTED, BY YOUR WILLFUL

7

DECISIONS TO DO THOSE THINGS.

8

DENIAL ABOUT THAT, YOU ARE LIKEWISE AN INCREASED RISK TO

9

COMMIT OTHER CRIMES.

CIRCUMSTANCES DON'T
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY

AS LONG AS YOU ARE IN

10

YOUR MOTHER SAID IN HER LETTER THAT NONE OF

11

THESE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFY WHAT YOU DID, AND I AGREE

12

FULLY WITH HER, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU DON'T SHARE

13

THAT ATTITUDE.

14

MR. THOMAS, LET ME TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO TALK

15

TO YOU ABOUT WHAT THE LAW REQUIRES ME TO DO HERE TODAY.

16

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3553(A)

17

REQUIRES ME TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE WHICH IS SUFFICIENT BUT

18

NOT GREATER THAN NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE PURPOSES OF

19

SENTENCING ESTABLISHED BY THE CONGRESS AND IN MAKING THAT

20

DETERMINATION ABOUT WHAT SENTENCE TO IMPOSE HAS GIVEN ME A

21

NUMBER OF FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

22

THE FIRST ONE IS THE ADVISORY GUIDELINE RANGE,

23

A RANGE THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED AT 37 TO 46 MONTHS.

24

HIGHER BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT'S OBJECTION TO THE ONE

25

POINT, ADDITIONAL POINT FOR ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 914

Filed 01/25/24

Page 27 of 51


28

1

HAS BEEN SUSTAINED, A ONE POINT INCREASE IN THE GUIDELINE

2

RANGE BROUGHT ABOUT BY YOUR ACTIONS, FILING OF PRO SE

3

MOTIONS, ATTEMPTS TO WITHDRAW A GUILTY PLEA, REQUEST TO

4

REPRESENT YOURSELF, ALL OF WHICH HAS NOW BEEN WITHDRAWN.

5

THE GUIDELINE RANGE IS ADVISORY.

6

TO SENTENCE YOU WITHIN THAT GUIDELINE RANGE.

7

CONSIDERABLE DISCRETION TO SENTENCE YOU EITHER ABOVE OR

8

BELOW THAT GUIDELINE RANGE; BUT THE GUIDELINE RANGE IS

9

OFTEN IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT GENERALLY REFLECTS A PROPER

10

CONSIDERATION OF ALL THOSE FACTORS LISTED IN 3553(A) FOR

11

THIS REASON, THAT GUIDELINE RANGE COMES FROM THE UNITED

12

STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, WHICH WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE

13

CONGRESS AS PART OF THE SENTENCING REFORM ACT OF 1984.

14

CONGRESS SPECIFICALLY TOLD THE SENTENCING COMMISSION TO

15

ESTABLISH THESE GUIDELINE RANGES, BUT TO DO SO ONLY AFTER

16

CONSIDERATION OF ALL THE 3553(A) FACTORS.

17

MY EXPERIENCE, MR. THOMAS, TELLS ME THEY'VE DONE EXACTLY

18

THAT, AND I'VE DEALT WITH THESE GUIDELINES SINCE THE DAY

19

THEY BECAME EFFECTIVE.

20

GUIDELINE RANGE THAT APPEARS TO REFLECT, IN MY VIEW, ALL

21

THE 3553(A) FACTORS.

22

I DON'T HAVE
I HAVE

EVERYTHING IN

SO THAT'S WHERE I START, WITH A

THERE IS A SECOND REASON WHY THE GUIDELINE

23

RANGE IS IMPORTANT.

24

FACTORS, (A)(6), WHICH DIRECTS THIS COURT TO CONSIDER THE

25

NEED TO AVOID UNWARRANTED SENTENCE DISPARITIES AMONG

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

IT RELATES TO ANOTHER OF THE 3553(A)

Document 79
PageID #: 915

Filed 01/25/24

Page 28 of 51


29

1

DEFENDANTS WITH SIMILAR RECORDS WHO HAVE BEEN FOUND GUILTY

2

OF SIMILAR CONDUCT.

3

UNIFORMITY IN SENTENCING.

4

ONE OF THOSE GOALS WITH WHICH I THINK A VAST MAJORITY OF

5

PEOPLE AGREE.

6

DONE THE SAME THING, WHO HAVE THE SAME OR SIMILAR CRIMINAL

7

HISTORY OUGHT TO RECEIVE ROUGHLY THE SAME SENTENCE.

8

A MATTER OF BASIC FAIRNESS IN MY VIEW; AND EVEN IF

9

CONGRESS DIDN'T TELL ME THAT THAT'S A CONSIDERATION IN

10

SENTENCING, COMMON SENSE WOULD BECAUSE THERE ARE PLENTY OF

11

STUDIES THAT INDICATE THAT THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF ANGER

12

AMONG INMATES IN PRISON TODAY IS THE FEELING THAT THEY

13

WERE TREATED MORE HARSHLY THAN SOMEBODY WHO DID THE VERY

14

SAME THING UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND WHO HAD THE

15

SAME KIND OF CRIMINAL RECORD.

16

SENTENCE WITHIN A PROPERLY CALCULATED ADVISORY GUIDELINE

17

RANGE PROMOTES THAT.

18

IN OTHER WORDS, TO TRY TO ACHIEVE
AND UNIFORMITY IN SENTENCING IS

IT JUST SIMPLY MEANS THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE

IT'S

SO CLEARLY IMPOSING A

NOW, BEYOND THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER

19

FACTORS, AND I HAVE TO CONSIDER THOSE FACTORS AND

20

ULTIMATELY MAKE A DETERMINATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THERE

21

IS ONE OR MORE OF THOSE FACTORS OR SEVERAL FACTORS IN

22

COMBINATION WHICH ARE NOT ADEQUATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN

23

THE GUIDELINE RANGE.

24

MORE SPECIFICALLY HERE, SINCE NEITHER PARTY

25

REALLY ASKS ME TO SENTENCE OUTSIDE THE GUIDELINE RANGE,

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 916

Filed 01/25/24

Page 29 of 51


30

1

WITH ONE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION, MAYBE THOSE 3553(A) FACTORS

2

ARE NOT AS IMPORTANT EXCEPT THAT I STILL CONSIDER THOSE

3

FACTORS IN DETERMINING WHERE WITHIN A GUIDELINE RANGE TO

4

SENTENCE.

5

EITHER WAY.

SO I'M REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THESE FACTORS

LET ME GO BACK TO THE GUIDELINE RANGE FOR A

6
7

MINUTE.

MR. HEAVENER, HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE IS A

8

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GUIDELINES WHICH WILL TAKE

9

EFFECT AT THE FIRST OF NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR UNLESS

10

CONGRESS SAYS OTHERWISE.

11

OTHERWISE.

12

IT IS, MUCH LESS DECIDE ON SOMETHING THAT SERIOUS.

CONGRESS IS NOT GOING TO SAY

CONGRESS CAN'T AGREE ON WHAT DAY OF THE WEEK

13

SO THE GUIDELINE RANGE AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED

14

HAS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY OF BECOMING EFFECTIVE, OR THE

15

GUIDELINE CHANGE HAS A VERY HIGH PROBABILITY OF BECOMING

16

EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 1.

17

IN CASES RECENTLY GONE AHEAD AND APPLIED THE TWO LEVEL

18

REDUCTION IN GUIDELINE RANGE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT

19

EFFECTIVE BECAUSE WHAT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION HAS DONE

20

IF IT'S NOT, NOT ADOPTED IS STILL MAKE A POLICY STATEMENT

21

ABOUT THE ZERO POINT OFFENDERS AND THAT THERE OUGHT TO BE

22

A REDUCTION IN GUIDELINE RANGE.

23

IT'S NOT IN EFFECT YET.

AND I HAVE

THE GOVERNMENT SUGGESTS THAT I SHOULD NOT DO

24

THAT IN THIS CASE.

25

NOT THE SENTENCING COMMISSION WILL MAKE THAT AMENDMENT

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

THERE IS DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR

Document 79
PageID #: 917

Filed 01/25/24

Page 30 of 51


31

1

RETROACTIVE, WHICH MEANS THAT IF THEY DO, DEFENDANTS WHO

2

HAVE BEEN SENTENCED WITH, WITHOUT THAT TWO LEVEL REDUCTION

3

CAN COME BACK TO COURT AND SEEK A REDUCTION IN SENTENCE

4

BASED ON THAT.

5

SO CLOSE TO NOVEMBER.

6

ARGUES THAT A VARIANCE BASED ON THAT MAY NOT BE

7

APPROPRIATE HERE, NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT LAW YET, BUT

8

BECAUSE THE GUIDELINE ALSO REFERENCES THAT IF THE

9

REDUCTION IS APPLIED, THERE STILL MAY BE A BASIS FOR AN

10

UPWARD DEPARTURE IN THE CASE.

11

THAT IS SOMEWHAT INEFFICIENT SINCE WE ARE
ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GOVERNMENT

NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE SIGNIFICANT CRIMINAL

12

HISTORY HERE.

13

OF OFFENSES CHARGED AND/OR DISMISSED, AND THERE ARE

14

NUMEROUS OF THOSE.

15

SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE, TEN OF THEM.

16

DOES NOT CONSIDER DISMISSED CHARGES ABSENT PROOF BY A

17

PREPONDERANCE THAT YOU HAVE IN FACT COMMITTED THOSE

18

OFFENSES, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT PROOF HERE.

19

WHAT YOU HAVE IS A VERY SUBSTANTIAL RECORD

ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX,
ORDINARILY THE COURT

THE SAME IS TRUE OF PENDING CHARGES.

UNLESS I

20

HAVE PROOF BY A PREPONDERANCE THAT YOU'VE ACTUALLY

21

COMMITTED THE OFFENSE THAT YOU'RE CHARGED WITH, IT'S NOT

22

APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER IT EITHER.

23

THE GOVERNMENT'S ARGUMENT THOUGH IS THAT IT'S

24

ESTABLISHED A PATTERN, A PATTERN OF CONDUCT FOR WHICH

25

YOU'VE BEEN CHARGED, EVEN THOUGH THOSE CHARGES ULTIMATELY

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 918

Filed 01/25/24

Page 31 of 51


32

1

FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; BUT

2

TECHNICALLY YOU WILL QUALIFY UNDER THE NEW GUIDELINE IF IT

3

TAKES EFFECT FOR A TWO LEVEL REDUCTION.
I STILL, EVEN IF APPLIED RETROACTIVELY OR

4
5

APPLIED NOW, I STILL HAVE DISCRETION THOUGH NOT TO

6

SENTENCE YOU WITHIN THE RANGE THAT RESULTS BECAUSE

7

ULTIMATELY IT'S ALL ADVISORY AND ALL I HAVE TO DO IS

8

DETERMINE A SENTENCE THAT'S SUFFICIENT BUT NOT GREATER

9

THAN NECESSARY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE GUIDELINE RANGE.

10

IN THIS CASE, MR. THOMAS, I'M NOT GOING TO GO

11

AHEAD AND PROSPECTIVELY APPLY THE GUIDELINE CHANGE.

12

THE SENTENCING COMMISSION'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TAKES

13

EFFECT IN NOVEMBER AND IF THEY MAKE IT RETROACTIVE, AND

14

THEY'RE CONSIDERING THAT ISSUE ON THEIR DOCKET, THIS

15

WEEK'S DOCKET, THEN YOU CAN FILE A MOTION TO ASK ME TO

16

REDUCE THE GUIDELINE RANGE, AND I'LL DECIDE AT THAT TIME

17

WHETHER OR NOT I OUGHT TO DO SO, WHETHER OR NOT I OUGHT TO

18

GRANT SOME VARIANCE BASED ON THAT; BUT GIVE ME AN

19

OPPORTUNITY, FRANKLY, TO SEE HOW THINGS PROGRESS FROM NOW

20

UNTIL THEN.

21

IF

THE GOVERNMENT ARGUES THAT THIS IS A SERIOUS

22

OFFENSE, I AGREE.

23

FROM THE TAXPAYERS IT IS A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

24

PROGRAM DESIGNED BY CONGRESS TO HELP PEOPLE WHO MET

25

CERTAIN CRITERIA DURING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

ANY TIME THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY IS STOLEN

Document 79
PageID #: 919

Filed 01/25/24

THIS WAS A

YOU DIDN'T

Page 32 of 51


33

1

MEET THOSE CRITERIA.

YOU SUBMITTED FRAUDULENT APPLICA-

2

TIONS BASED ON SHAM, AT LEAST ONE SHAM CORPORATION IN

3

ORDER TO GET THOSE FUNDS.

4

BILL HERE FOR WHATEVER OF IT YOU CANNOT REPAY.

TAXPAYERS END UP FOOTING THE

IN MY VIEW ANY KIND OF THEFT OFFENSE IS A

5
6

SERIOUS OFFENSE BECAUSE THEFT OFFENSES ARE SO PREVALENT,

7

BUT THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS BECAUSE NOT ONLY

8

DID YOU SUBMIT FRAUDULENT APPLICATIONS, BUT THIS KOG INC.

9

WAS A COMPLETE SHAM, APPARENTLY CREATED FOR THE SIMPLE

10

PURPOSE OF APPLYING FOR THE PPP LOAN.

11

LEVELS OF DISHONESTY INVOLVED THERE, THE FORMATION OF THE

12

SHAM CORPORATION, A FALSE DOCUMENT SHOWING PAYROLL OF

13

EMPLOYEES THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE, INCLUDING APPARENTLY TWO

14

TELEVISION OR RADIO EVANGELISTS, AND THEN THE FALSE

15

CERTIFICATIONS ON THE LOAN APPLICATION ITSELF.

THERE ARE MULTIPLE

NOW, YOU ATTEMPT TO MINIMIZE THAT BY TELLING ME

16
17

HOW STRESSFUL THINGS WERE IN YOUR LIFE.

IF IT'S NOT

18

OBVIOUS FROM WHAT I HAVE ALREADY SAID, THOSE THINGS DID

19

NOT CAUSE YOU TO COMMIT THIS OFFENSE.

20

USE METHAMPHETAMINE FOR WHATEVER PURPOSE, AND THAT

21

METHAMPHETAMINE CAUSED YOU TO SUFFER FROM CERTAIN

22

CONDITIONS THAT WERE INDUCED BY THE METHAMPHETAMINE USE,

23

BUT NEITHER THE METHAMPHETAMINE USE NOR THE STRESSES OR

24

CIRCUMSTANCES IN YOUR LIFE CAUSED YOU TO COMMIT THIS

25

OFFENSE.

YOU MADE CHOICES TO

THE REASON I SAY THAT, MR. THOMAS, IS TO REACH A

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 920

Filed 01/25/24

Page 33 of 51


34

1

CONCLUSION THAT SOMETHING ELSE, SOME EXTERNAL FORCE CAUSED

2

YOU TO COMMIT THIS OFFENSE RELIEVES YOU FROM ANY

3

RESPONSIBILITY.

4

SO IT'S A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

I ALSO THINK THE NEED TO PROMOTE RESPECT FOR

5

THE LAW HERE IS IMPORTANT AS WELL, NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE

6

MULTIPLE LEVELS OF DISHONESTY, BUT BECAUSE OF FAILURES TO

7

APPEAR, AND IT'S NOT CLEAR YOU WERE IN CUSTODY AT THOSE

8

TIMES AND YOU DON'T EVEN SEEM TO KNOW MUCH ABOUT THIS

9

CHARGE; BUT ON DECEMBER 17, 2021 YOU WERE CHARGED IN WISE

10

COUNTY GENERAL DISTRICT COURT WITH DRIVING UNDER THE

11

INFLUENCE OF DRUGS.

12

CASE WAS SET FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2022, YOU DID NOT APPEAR.

13

YOU WERE APPARENTLY PICKED UP ON THAT FAILURE TO APPEAR,

14

WHICH SUGGESTS TO ME THAT YOU WERE NOT IN JAIL BECAUSE YOU

15

WERE RELEASED ON THE NEXT DAY ON A SUMMONS, AND THE CASE

16

WAS RESET FOR MAY 26, 2022, AND YOU FAILED TO APPEAR, AND

17

THERE'S ANOTHER RELEASE ON SUMMONS, AND I DON'T KNOW

18

EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, AND NOW

19

YOU HAVE A COURT DATE OF JANUARY 6, 2023.

20

LACK OF RESPECT FOR THE LAW.

21

SUGGESTING THAT YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT ANY OF

22

THAT SUGGESTS TO ME A VERY LACKADAISICAL ATTITUDE ABOUT

23

THE LAW AND WHAT'S REQUIRED OF YOU.

24

IS A NEED HERE TO PROMOTE RESPECT FOR THE LAW ON YOUR PART

25

AND CERTAINLY ON THE PART OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

YOU WERE RELEASED ON AN O.R. BOND,

Document 79
PageID #: 921

THAT SHOWS A

AND YOUR COMMENTS TODAY

SO I DO THINK THERE

Filed 01/25/24

Page 34 of 51


35

I ALSO HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEED TO

1
2

AFFORD AN ADEQUATE DETERRENCE TO CRIMINAL CONDUCT.

3

MR. THOMAS, LET ME MAKE MYSELF CLEAR IF I DIDN'T A FEW

4

MINUTES AGO, WITH UNRESOLVED MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES AND

5

UNRESOLVED ISSUES RELATED TO DRUG ADDICTION AND WITHOUT

6

WHAT I CONSIDER TO BE A FULL ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILITY

7

HERE, YOU ARE A VERY HIGH RISK OF REOFFENDING IN SOME

8

MANNER.

9

ADDRESSED, YOU HAVE AN ADDICTION THAT NEEDS TO BE

10

ADDRESSED, AND YOU NEED TO STOP OFFERING EXCUSES FOR YOUR

11

CONDUCT.

12

NOW,

YOU HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE

COVID AND THAT NATIONAL EMERGENCY WERE STRESS-

13

FUL FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE.

14

WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE SICK DURING THAT PERIOD; AND I DON'T

15

MEAN THAT TO EXPRESS ANY LACK OF SYMPATHY, BUT OTHER

16

PEOPLE EXPERIENCED SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES, PEOPLE HAD FAMILY

17

MEMBERS DYING AND BUSINESSES WERE FAILING ALL ACROSS THE

18

COUNTRY, AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T RUSH OUT AND CREATE A

19

SHAM CORPORATION AND SEEK A FRAUDULENT LOAN.

20

YOUR DAUGHTER, UNFORTUNATELY,

MR. THOMAS, I'D SUGGEST TO YOU THAT DURING THE

21

PERIOD OF INCARCERATION YOU THINK VERY SERIOUSLY ABOUT

22

YOUR OWN ROLE IN ALL OF THIS.

23

IS NECESSARY TO DETER YOU FROM FURTHER CRIMINAL CONDUCT IN

24

LIGHT OF UNRESOLVED PROBLEMS LIKE I JUST DESCRIBED, BUT AT

25

LEAST THE SENTENCING COMMISSION THINKS THAT A GUIDELINE

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 922

I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW WHAT

Filed 01/25/24

Page 35 of 51


36

1

RANGE SENTENCE IS ADEQUATE TO DO THAT.
I ALSO HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT SOMETHING

2
3

CALLED GENERAL DETERRENCE MORE GENERALLY DIRECTED TO THE

4

PUBLIC AT LARGE.

5

CASES.

6

SOMEBODY TRIES TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO FRAUDULENTLY OBTAIN

7

SOME OF THE PROCEEDS OF THAT PROGRAM.

8

DIFFERENCE WHETHER IT'S SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION OR

9

WHETHER IT'S PPP OR WHETHER IT'S VA OR SOCIAL SECURITY,

10

PEOPLE TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THOSE, AND THAT IS

11

JUST SIMPLE DISHONESTY, MR. THOMAS, IT'S STEALING.

12

AGREE FULLY WITH YOUR MOTHER WHO WROTE THAT LETTER THAT

13

NONE OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN YOUR LIFE JUSTIFIES THAT

14

CONDUCT.

THESE KINDS OF CASES ARE EGREGIOUS

EVERY TIME THERE IS A NEW GOVERNMENT PROGRAM,

IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY

AND I

I HAVE TO CONSIDER ALSO THE NEED TO PROTECT THE

15
16

PUBLIC.

MS. BOLTON EXPLAINED WHY SHE SUBMITTED THAT

17

LETTER FROM YOUR ACCOUNTANT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PORTION

18

OF IT; BUT IF I AM TO ACCEPT THAT LETTER, IT SUGGESTS THAT

19

DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME YOU WERE NOT JUST UNDER STRESS,

20

YOU WERE NOT JUST DOING FRAUDULENT THINGS, YOU WERE A

21

THREAT TO HIS SAFETY.

22

SCARED TO BE AROUND YOU, BUT HE SAID HE WAS.

23

DIDN'T WRITE, BUT WHAT I SUSPECT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT, WAS

24

THAT YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES, YOUR SPEECH, YOUR ACTIONS

25

WERE ALL IRRATIONAL, NOT THAT OF A NORMAL PERSON, AND

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

HE DIDN'T ELABORATE ON WHY HE WAS

Document 79
PageID #: 923

Filed 01/25/24

AND WHAT HE

Page 36 of 51


37

1

IRRATIONAL TO THE POINT THAT HE FEARED PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.

2

IF YOU DON'T ADDRESS THESE ISSUES, I THINK THERE'S A

3

LIKELIHOOD YOU'LL GET BACK TO THAT SITUATION AGAIN.

4

NOW, I KNOW YOU HAVE FAMILY SUPPORT.

I READ

5

YOUR MOTHER AND FATHER'S LETTER CAREFULLY.

THOSE KINDS OF

6

LETTERS IN A LOT OF WAYS BREAK MY HEART BECAUSE THEY TRIED

7

TO DO EVERYTHING THEY COULD.

8

ARE THEIR SON, AND THAT WILL REMAIN THE CASE; BUT IT'S

9

OBVIOUS THEY CAN'T INFLUENCE YOUR BEHAVIOR SOMETIMES.

THEY STILL LOVE YOU.

YOU

10

I READ THOSE OTHER LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED

11

AS WELL; BUT A MESSAGE HAS TO BE SENT FROM THIS COURT, A

12

MESSAGE OF GENERAL DETERRENCE, THAT FEDERAL COURTS WILL

13

NOT TREAT AS ANYTHING OTHER THAN SERIOUS, WILL NOT IMPOSE

14

PARTICULARLY LENIENT SENTENCES IN CASES LIKE THIS.

15

NOW, I DON'T HAVE ANY STUDY TO BACK THIS UP,

16

BUT I VENTURE A GUESS THAT A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THE

17

FRAUD DIRECTED TO THE U.S. GOVERNMENT IS UNDETECTED.

18

A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

19

IT'S

I ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER HERE THE NATURE AND

20

CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS OFFENSE.

21

AGREE WITH MR. HEAVENER THAT MOST OF THE AGGRAVATING

22

FACTORS HERE ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE GUIDELINES OR

23

BY PARTICULAR ENHANCEMENTS UNDER THE GUIDELINES.

24

WERE LARGE POTENTIAL LOSSES HERE.

25

PLEASED THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS ABLE TO RECOVER AT LEAST A

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 924

I

THERE

I, LIKE MS. BOLTON, AM

Filed 01/25/24

Page 37 of 51


38

1

LARGE PORTION OF THAT MONEY, BUT THE LOSSES WERE HIGH.

2

THERE WAS, AS THE GOVERNMENT PUT IT, EGREGIOUS CONDUCT

3

RELATED TO THIS KOG INC.

4

AND, FINALLY, I HAVE TO CONSIDER YOUR PERSONAL

5

HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS, ALL OF THESE PERSONAL ISSUES

6

THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.

7

OF THOSE THINGS IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY DON'T, DON'T

8

EXIST IN THIS CASE TO SOME SORT OF EXTRAORDINARY DEGREE.

9

THEY'RE NOT SO EXCEPTIONAL, SO DIFFERENT THAT IT SETS YOU

10

APART FROM ANY OTHER DEFENDANTS.

11

TIME THAT HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES.

12

TODAY THAT ARE SUFFERING FROM A SERIOUS DRUG ADDICTION.

13

SEE DEFENDANTS ALL THE TIME WHO HAVE VERY DIFFICULT PER-

14

SONAL CIRCUMSTANCES.

15

RIGHT NOW WHERE A DEFENDANT'S MOTHER DIED WHILE SHE WAS IN

16

CUSTODY.

17

BUT AS A GENERAL RULE UNDER THE GUIDELINES THEY'RE

18

IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EXCEPTIONAL, THEY'RE NOT

19

OUT OF THE ORDINARY; AND UNDER SIXTH CIRCUIT CASE LAW

20

DEALING WITH THESE PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WHILE THE SIXTH

21

CIRCUIT HAS SAID -- HAS NOT SAID THAT THE COURT CANNOT

22

CONSIDER THOSE THINGS, IT HAS IN MANY OF THOSE CASES FOUND

23

THOSE TO BE DISFAVORED FACTORS WHEN IMPOSING A SENTENCE.

24

THAT BRINGS ME BACK TO THE GUIDELINES, WHERE

25

UNDER THE GUIDELINES EVERY ONE

I SEE DEFENDANTS ALL THE
I'VE SEEN DEFENDANTS
I

THERE'S A CASE PENDING IN THIS COURT

THOSE ARE ALL DIFFICULT PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES,

WITHIN A RANGE OF 37 TO 46 MONTHS TO SENTENCE YOU.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 925

Filed 01/25/24

THE

Page 38 of 51


39

1

GOVERNMENT ADVOCATES THE TOP, MS. BOLTON ASKS ME FOR THE

2

BOTTOM.

3

THERE, 9 MONTHS, DOESN'T REALLY MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE, AND

4

MAYBE IT DOESN'T IN TERMS OF ACCOMPLISHING SOME OF THE

5

PURPOSES OF SENTENCING; BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT 9 MONTHS IS

6

SIGNIFICANT TO YOU, I UNDERSTAND THAT 9 MONTHS IS

7

SIGNIFICANT TO YOUR FAMILY, 9 MONTHS IS SIGNIFICANT TO

8

YOUR DAUGHTER; AND I DON'T KNOW ULTIMATELY WHAT WILL

9

HAPPEN ABOUT THAT VIOLATION OF THAT ORDER OF PROTECTION,

10

MS. BOLTON SEEMS TO THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DISMISSED

11

BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT CAN'T PROVE IT, AND THAT MAY BE THE

12

CASE, BUT I'LL TELL YOU GOING FORWARD, MR. THOMAS, THAT IF

13

THERE IS ANY DOUBT IN YOUR MIND ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT,

14

YOU SHOULD NOT WRITE AND SEND THE LETTER.

15

ASSUME THAT IT NO LONGER APPLIES.

SOME PEOPLE MIGHT ARGUE THAT THAT DIFFERENCE

YOU CAN'T JUST

SO THE QUESTION FOR ME, VERY SIMPLY PUT, IS

16
17

WHAT GOAL OF SENTENCING DOES A 46 MONTH SENTENCE REALIZE

18

THAT A 37 MONTH SENTENCE WOULD NOT.

19

MR. THOMAS, A 37 MONTH BOTTOM OF THE GUIDELINE RANGE

20

SENTENCE DOES NOT APPROPRIATELY CAPTURE THE SERIOUSNESS OF

21

THIS OFFENSE, THE SIGNIFICANT LOSSES, THE LEVELS OF FRAUD

22

AND DECEPTION, AND THE FACTORS THAT MAKE YOU A HIGH RISK

23

TO REOFFEND.

24

FACTORS DICTATE A SENTENCE AT THE TOP OF THE GUIDELINE

25

RANGE.

IN MY VIEW,

AT THE SAME TIME I DO NOT FIND THAT THOSE

I'M GOING TO IMPOSE A SENTENCE HERE SLIGHTLY ABOVE

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 926

Filed 01/25/24

Page 39 of 51


40

1

THE BOTTOM OF THE GUIDELINE RANGE.

I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU

2

THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ON MOST OF THAT, BUT, MR. THOMAS,

3

THINGS HAVE TO CHANGE.

4

MENTAL HEALTH PROBLEMS, YOU NEED TO GET HELP FOR THE

5

SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEMS.

6

VERY CAREFULLY AND COME TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU FULLY

7

ACCEPT THAT THESE WERE CHOICES YOU MADE.

YOU NEED TO GET HELP FOR YOUR

YOU NEED TO EXAMINE YOURSELF

SO HAVING CONSIDERED THE NATURE AND CIRCUM-

8
9

STANCES OF THE OFFENSE, YOUR HISTORY AND CHARACTERISTICS,

10

THE ADVISORY GUIDELINE RANGE WHICH APPLIES TO THIS CASE,

11

AS WELL AS ALL THE OTHER FACTORS LISTED IN TITLE 18,

12

UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3553(A), IT IS PURSUANT TO THE

13

SENTENCING REFORM ACT OF 1984 THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT

14

THAT ON COUNT 1 OF THIS INDICTMENT THE DEFENDANT, CHAD

15

BRANDON THOMAS, IS HEREBY COMMITTED TO THE CUSTODY OF THE

16

BUREAU OF PRISONS TO BE IN PRISON FOR A TERM OF 40 MONTHS.

17

NOW, I ALSO HAVE TO DETERMINE HOW TO STRUCTURE

18

THIS SENTENCE IN RELATION TO THE PENDING CHARGE IN WISE

19

COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

20

DISMISS ALL OF THAT IN LIGHT OF THIS FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT

21

SENTENCE IN FEDERAL COURT.

22

WITH THAT.

23

THE SAME TIME I THINK THE BEST HOPE OF YOU SUCCEEDING

24

COMPLETELY WOULD BE FOR ME TO ORDER THIS SENTENCE TO BE

25

SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH THAT ONE.

IT MAY BE, MR. THOMAS, THAT THEY SIMPLY

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WILL DO

IT'S UNRELATED LARGELY TO THIS OFFENSE, BUT AT

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 927

I DO THAT WITH A

Filed 01/25/24

Page 40 of 51


41

1

LITTLE BIT OF HESITATION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DO WANT

2

TO GIVE YOU AS MUCH BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT AS I CAN GIVE YOU

3

AND I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE BEST CHANCE OF SUCCESS AS I CAN

4

GIVE YOU, AND A SENTENCE THAT IS CONCURRENT WITH THAT

5

MEANS THAT YOU CAN SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL,

6

YOU KNOW WHEN THIS IS DONE.
SO THE SENTENCE SHALL BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY TO

7
8

ANY SENTENCE IMPOSED IN WISE COUNTY, VIRGINIA GENERAL

9

DISTRICT COURT DOCKET NUMBERS GT2000 -- 2000

10

--21007204-00, AS WELL AS THE OTHER TWO CASE NUMBERS THAT

11

HAVE ARISEN AS A RESULT OF THE CHARGES THAT YOU FAILED TO

12

APPEAR ON TWO OCCASIONS.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE CASE NUMBERS HANDY,

13
14

MS. HOPSON, BUT INSERT THOSE INTO THE JUDGMENT.

15

THE CLERK:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

16

THE COURT:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED PURSUANT TO

17

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 3663(A) AND 3664(H)

18

THAT YOU PAY RESTITUTION IN THE FULL AMOUNT OF $307,700

19

TO THE VICTIMS IN THIS CASE; HOWEVER THAT AMOUNT WILL BE

20

ADJUSTED BY THE AMOUNT RECOVERED BY THE GOVERNMENT,

21

RESULTING IN A TOTAL OUTSTANDING RESTITUTION OBLIGATION OF

22

$145,761.
I FIND THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY

23
24

INTEREST ON THE RESTITUTION ORDERED AND INTEREST IS

25

WAIVED.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 928

Filed 01/25/24

Page 41 of 51


42

1

THE GOVERNMENT MAY ENFORCE THE FULL AMOUNT OF

2

RESTITUTION ORDERED AT ANY TIME PURSUANT TO TITLE 18,

3

UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 3612 AND 3664(M).

4

I WILL RECOMMEND THAT YOU RECEIVE ANY AVAILABLE

5

SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE

6

BUREAU OF PRISONS; AND I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE ENOUGH

7

TIME LEFT TO GET THE INTENSIVE RDAP PROGRAM, I HOPE YOU

8

DO, BECAUSE THAT'S A VERY GOOD, INTENSIVE DRUG TREATMENT

9

PROGRAM; SO IF YOU CAN GET THE RDAP, THAT'S WHAT I

10

RECOMMEND; BUT IF NOT THE RDAP, THEN ANY OTHER SUBSTANCE

11

ABUSE TREATMENT PROGRAMS THAT THE BOP HAS.

12

I WILL RECOMMEND THAT YOU RECEIVE A FULL

13

PHYSICAL HEALTH AND MAYBE MORE IMPORTANTLY MENTAL HEALTH

14

EVALUATION WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE BUREAU OF PRISONS

15

AND ANY NEEDED TREATMENT WHILE IN THE CUSTODY OF THE BOP.

16

I WILL RECOMMEND AS WELL THAT YOU BE AFFORDED A

17

FULL RANGE OF EDUCATIONAL AND/OR VOCATIONAL PROGRAMS

18

OFFERED BY THE BUREAU OF PRISONS.

19

UPON RELEASE FROM IMPRISONMENT, YOU SHALL BE

20

PLACED ON SUPERVISED RELEASE FOR A TERM OF 3 YEARS.

21

WHILE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE YOU SHALL NOT

22

COMMIT ANOTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL CRIME.

23

NOT UNLAWFULLY POSSESS AND YOU MUST REFRAIN FROM THE USE

24

OF ANY CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE.

25

STANDARD CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THIS COURT

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 929

YOU MUST

YOU MUST COMPLY WITH THE

Filed 01/25/24

Page 42 of 51


43

1

IN LOCAL RULE 83.10.

2

POSSESS OR HAVE ACCESS TO A FIREARM, ANY AMMUNITION, ANY

3

DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE OR ANY DANGEROUS WEAPON.
YOU MUST COOPERATE IN THE COLLECTION OF DNA AS

4
5
6

IN PARTICULAR, YOU MUST NOT OWN,

DIRECTED.
IN ADDITION, YOU SHALL COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOW-

7

ING SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE:

8

SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A PROGRAM OF TESTING AND TREATMENT

9

FOR DRUG AND/OR ALCOHOL ABUSE AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION

10

OFFICER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU ARE RELEASED FROM THE

11

PROGRAM BY THE PROBATION OFFICER.

12

FIRST, YOU

SECONDLY, YOU SHALL PARTICIPATE IN A PROGRAM OF

13

MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT AS DIRECTED BY THE PROBATION

14

OFFICER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU ARE RELEASED FROM THE PRO-

15

GRAM BY THE PROBATION OFFICER.

16

TO CONFIDENTIALITY REGARDING MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT IN

17

ORDER TO ALLOW RELEASE OF INFORMATION TO THE SUPERVISING

18

UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICER AND TO AUTHORIZE OPEN

19

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PROBATION OFFICER AND THE MENTAL

20

HEALTH TREATMENT PROVIDER.

21
22
23

YOU MUST WAIVE ALL RIGHTS

THIRD, YOU SHALL PROVIDE THE PROBATION OFFICER
WITH ACCESS TO ANY REQUESTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
THIRD -- OR FOURTH, RATHER, YOU SHALL NOT INCUR

24

NEW CREDIT CHARGES ON EXISTING ACCOUNTS OR APPLY FOR

25

ADDITIONAL LINES OF CREDIT WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 930

Filed 01/25/24

Page 43 of 51


44

1

PROBATION OFFICER UNTIL THE RESTITUTION HAS BEEN PAID IN

2

FULL.

3

CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS WHICH OBLIGATE FUNDS WITHOUT THE

4

PERMISSION OF THE PROBATION OFFICER.

IN ADDITION, YOU SHALL NOT ENTER INTO ANY

FIFTH, YOU SHALL PAY ANY FINANCIAL PENALTY

5
6

IMPOSED BY THIS JUDGMENT AS A CONDITION OF SUPERVISION.

7

ANY AMOUNT THAT REMAINS UNPAID AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE

8

TERM OF SUPERVISED RELEASE SHALL BE PAID ON A MONTHLY

9

BASIS IN THE AMOUNT OF AT LEAST 10 PERCENT OF YOUR NET

10

MONTHLY INCOME.

11

YOU SHALL -- ALSO YOU SHALL SUBMIT YOUR PERSON,

12

PROPERTY, HOUSE, RESIDENCE, VEHICLE, PAPERS OR OFFICE TO A

13

SEARCH CONDUCTED BY A UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICER OR

14

DESIGNEE.

15

FOR REVOCATION OF RELEASE.

16

OCCUPANTS THAT THE PREMISES MAY BE SUBJECT TO SEARCH

17

PURSUANT TO THIS CONDITION.

18

SEARCH PURSUANT TO THIS CONDITION ONLY WHEN REASONABLE

19

SUSPICION EXISTS THAT YOU HAVE VIOLATED A CONDITION OF

20

YOUR SUPERVISED RELEASE AND THAT THE AREAS TO BE SEARCHED

21

CONTAIN EVIDENCE OF THE VIOLATION.

22

CONDUCTED AT A REASONABLE TIME AND IN A REASONABLE MANNER.

23

FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO A SEARCH MAY BE GROUNDS
YOU MUST WARN ANY OTHER

AN OFFICER MAY CONDUCT A

ANY SEARCH MUST BE

AND, FINALLY, AND I THINK THIS IS NUMBER 7, I

24

MAY HAVE MISCOUNTED --

25

THE CLERK:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

IT IS, YOUR HONOR.

Document 79
PageID #: 931

Filed 01/25/24

Page 44 of 51


45

1

THE COURT:

-- YOU SHALL NOT TAKE ANY

2

PRESCRIBED NARCOTIC DRUG WITHOUT FIRST NOTIFYING THE

3

PHYSICIAN THAT YOU HAVE A SUBSTANCE ABUSE PROBLEM AND

4

WITHOUT OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THE PROBATION OFFICER.

5

IN ADDITION TO THAT, TO THE EXTENT ANY MENTAL

6

HEALTH MEDICATIONS ARE PRESCRIBED, THE PROBATION OFFICE IS

7

AUTHORIZED TO ORDER REGULAR BLOOD TESTS TO ENSURE THAT YOU

8

ARE IN FACT TAKING THE MEDICATION.

9

NOW, THAT'S CRITICAL, MR. THOMAS.

I'LL TELL

10

YOU ONE THING I'VE LEARNED ABOUT MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS

11

OVER ALL THESE YEARS DOING THIS, PEOPLE HAVE MENTAL HEALTH

12

CONDITIONS, THEY ARE PRESCRIBED MEDICATION, THEY BEGIN TO

13

FEEL BETTER, THEY COME TO THE CONCLUSION THEY DON'T NEED

14

THE MENTAL HEALTH MEDICATIONS, AND THEY FALL RIGHT BACK IN

15

THE SAME TRAP AGAIN; SO IF THERE ARE MENTAL HEALTH

16

MEDICATIONS PRESCRIBED, YOU NEED TO STAY ON THEM.

17

READING THAT REPORT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BOP WILL, WILL

18

PRESCRIBE, IF ANYTHING, BUT YOU MAY VERY WELL HAVE

19

MEDICATIONS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED DURING A MENTAL HEALTH

20

TREATMENT PROGRAM WHILE ON SUPERVISED RELEASE, BUT YOU

21

HAVE TO TAKE THOSE MEDICATIONS.

22

AFTER

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT YOU SHALL PAY TO THE

23

UNITED STATES A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT OF $100 WHICH IS

24

MANDATORY PURSUANT TO TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

25

SECTION 3013, WHICH SHALL BE DUE IMMEDIATELY.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 932

Filed 01/25/24

Page 45 of 51


46

I FIND THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO PAY

1
2

A FINE, THE COURT WAIVES ANY FINE IN THIS CASE.

3

THE COURT HAS REVIEWED YOUR PLEA AGREEMENT WITH

4

THE GOVERNMENT, THAT PLEA AGREEMENT IS NOW ACCEPTED BY THE

5

COURT.
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 3565(B)

6
7

AND 3583(G) REQUIRE MANDATORY REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED

8

RELEASE FOR POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OR A

9

FIREARM OR FOR REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH DRUG TESTING.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT YOU WERE INITIALLY ARRESTED

10
11

ON AUGUST 8, 2021 AND RELEASED ON BOND THE SAME DAY, SO

12

THAT'S ONE DAY, BUT AT SOME POINT YOUR BOND WAS REVOKED IN

13

THIS CASE, AND I DON'T HAVE THAT DATE.

14

WHAT DATE?
MR. HEAVENER:

15

DO YOU REMEMBER

YOUR HONOR, MY BEST RECOLLECTION

16

IS THERE WAS A, A MOTION FILED FOR A COMPETENCE EVALUATION

17

BY THE DEFENSE AND HE WAS IN CUSTODY -THE COURT:

18

THAT'S WHY HE WAS IN CUSTODY.

19

MISSPOKE, YOU'RE RIGHT.

20

MR. HEAVENER:

21

THE COURT:

22

25

YES, SIR.

AND DO YOU KNOW THE DATE OF THAT

ORDER?
PROBATION OFFICER:

23
24

I

OCTOBER 25, 2022, YOUR

HONOR.
THE COURT:

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

AND HE HAS BEEN IN CONTINUOUS

Document 79
PageID #: 933

Filed 01/25/24

Page 46 of 51


47

1

CUSTODY SINCE THEN?

2

PROBATION OFFICER:

3

THE COURT:

YES, YOUR HONOR.

ALL RIGHT.

THEN I'LL RECOMMEND

4

THAT YOU RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ALL TIME SERVED BETWEEN

5

OCTOBER 25, 2022 AND THE PRESENT.
DO YOU WANT ME TO RECOMMEND A FACILITY FOR THE

6
7

SERVICE OF THE SENTENCE?

8
9
10

MS. BOLTON:

YOUR HONOR, BUTNER, NORTH

THE COURT:

I THINK BUTNER IS A GOOD CHOICE,

CAROLINA.

11

MR. THOMAS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE VERY GOOD MEDICAL -- BOTH

12

MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH FACILITIES THERE, AND IT'S

13

RELATIVELY CLOSE TO YOUR FAMILY TO FACILITATE CONTINUED

14

CONTACT WITH THEM, SO I WILL RECOMMEND THAT YOU BE

15

DESIGNATED TO THE FACILITY AT BUTNER, NORTH CAROLINA TO

16

SERVE THIS SENTENCE.

17

PURSUANT TO RULE 32 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF

18

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, THE COURT ADVISES YOU THAT YOU MAY

19

HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL YOUR CONVICTION OR THE SENTENCE

20

IMPOSED IN THIS CASE.

21

WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THE JUDGMENT.

22

REQUEST AND SO DESIRE, THE CLERK OF THE COURT CAN PREPARE

23

AND FILE THE NOTICE OF APPEAL FOR YOU.

A NOTICE OF APPEAL MUST BE FILED
IF YOU

24

MR. THOMAS, IF YOU WANT TO APPEAL, YOU NEED TO

25

IMMEDIATELY TELL YOUR, TELL YOUR LAWYER THAT YOU WANT TO

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 934

Filed 01/25/24

Page 47 of 51


48

1

APPEAL OR NOTIFY THE CLERK'S OFFICE.

2

DOES EITHER PARTY HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE

3

SENTENCE JUST PRONOUNCED BY THE COURT THAT HAS NOT BEEN

4

PREVIOUSLY RAISED?
MR. HEAVENER:

5
6

SUBMITTED A ORDER OF FORFEITURE TODAY -THE COURT:

7
8

I WILL SIGN THAT ORDER.

I HAVE NOT

YET.
MR. HEAVENER:

9
10

YOUR HONOR, I MAY HAVE -- WE HAD

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT

THE JUDGMENT MENTIONED THE FORFEITURE.
THE COURT:

11

BUT I DID NOT MENTION THAT, I

12

NEGLECTED TO SAY THIS JUDGMENT WILL ALSO INCLUDE

13

FORFEITURE AS PROVIDED FOR IN THAT PRELIMINARY ORDER OF

14

FORFEITURE.

15

ANYTHING ELSE, MR. HEAVENER?

16

MR. HEAVENER:

17

NO, YOUR HONOR, AND NO

OBJECTION.

18

THE COURT:

ANY OTHER OBJECTION, MS. BOLTON?

19

MS. BOLTON:

NO, YOUR HONOR.

20

PROBATION OFFICER:

YOUR HONOR, I DIDN'T KNOW

21

IF YOU WANTED TO ADDRESS THE PENDING VIOLATION ORDER OF

22

PROTECTION TO RUN CONCURRENTLY OR CONSECUTIVELY.

23

THE COURT:

BASED ON WHAT MS. BOLTON HAS TOLD

24

ME, REPRESENTED TO ME, I'M INCLINED TO THINK THAT THIS

25

OUGHT TO BE CONCURRENT WITH THAT AS WELL, MR. THOMAS,

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 935

Filed 01/25/24

Page 48 of 51


49

1

SIMPLY BECAUSE WHAT I'M DOING IS ROLLING IT UP INTO ONE

2

PACKAGE.

3

EVERYBODY WAS GETTING ALL UPSET ABOUT THAT, BUT THAT'S A

4

SERIOUS ALLEGATION.

THAT'S A SERIOUS OFFENSE.

MR. HEAVENER:

5

MS. BOLTON THOUGHT

YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST ADD,

6

I DID LOOK BACK THROUGH THE POLICE REPORT, AND I HAVE NOT

7

REVIEWED THE STATE DOCKET, BUT THE POLICE REPORT REFLECTS

8

THAT THAT ORDER IS IN, IS IN EFFECT UNTIL I BELIEVE AUGUST

9

23RD.
THE COURT:

10

AUGUST -- LATER THIS MONTH, OR

11

LATER THIS WEEK ACTUALLY.

12

MR. HEAVENER:

YES, SIR.

I'VE GOT A PICTURE OF

13

THE -- I THINK IT'S THE PICTURE OF THE ORDER, BUT IT'S A

14

VERY SMALL PICTURE, SO I DON'T WANT TO REPRESENT TO THE

15

COURT WHAT IT IS, BUT -THE COURT:

16

WELL, IF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE

17

OCCURRED WHILE THE ORDER WAS IN EFFECT, THEY COULD STILL

18

PROSECUTE HIM.
MS. BOLTON:

19

SURE, AND I WANT TO CLARIFY.

20

IT WAS EXTENDED TO AUGUST 23RD, OR AUGUST 23RD, AUGUST

21

2000 --

22

THE COURT:

'23.

23

MS. BOLTON:

'23, SORRY, HE WAS NOT GIVEN

WHEN

24

NOTICE OF THAT, THAT'S WHERE THE, THE, THE DIFFERENCE IS;

25

BUT EITHER WAY --

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 936

Filed 01/25/24

Page 49 of 51


50

THE COURT:

1

I DON'T HAVE ANY WAY OF KNOWING

2

THAT; BUT, MR. THOMAS, THAT'S A VERY EXPLOSIVE SITUATION.

3

THERE ARE NUMEROUS PEOPLE KILLED IN THIS COUNTRY AS A

4

RESULT OF DOMESTIC DISPUTES, THERE ARE NUMEROUS POLICE

5

OFFICERS KILLED EVERY YEAR RESPONDING TO DOMESTIC

6

DISPUTES.

7

SOMETHING FOR EVERYBODY TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT, BUT,

8

NEVERTHELESS, I'LL ORDER THAT IF THERE'S ANY SENTENCE

9

IMPOSED IN THAT CASE, THIS WILL BE CONCURRENT WITH THAT.

IT IS, FRANKLY, SOMETHING TO GET UPSET ABOUT,

10

WHAT ELSE, MS. EARLY?

11

PROBATION OFFICER:

12

THAT'S IT, YOUR HONOR.

THANK YOU.

13

THE COURT:

14

MR. THOMAS, I WISH YOU THE BEST.

15

MOUNTAIN TO CLIMB HERE IN TERMS OF PROBLEMS YOU HAVE TO

16

DEAL WITH.

17

HOPE YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF EVERY BOP RESOURCE AVAILABLE TO

18

YOU, THAT YOU HAVE A PLAN WHEN YOU ARE RELEASED, AND THAT

19

YOU GET ABOUT REALIZING THAT PLAN.

20

THE DEFENDANT:

21

THE COURT:

22

ALL RIGHT.
YOU'VE GOT A

I WISH YOU THE VERY BEST IN DOING THAT.

I

THANK YOU.

I WISH YOUR DAUGHTER THE BEST AS

WELL.

23

THE DEFENDANT:

24

THE COURT:

GOOD LUCK TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY.

25

ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S IT FOR TODAY.

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

ALL RIGHT.

Document 79
PageID #: 937

THANK YOU.

Filed 01/25/24

LET'S ADJOURN

Page 50 of 51


51

1
2
3

FOR THE DAY.

THANK YOU ALL.

MR. HEAVENER:

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCLUDED AT 4:25 P.M.)

4

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A CORRECT TRANSCRIPT FROM

5

THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER.

6
7
8

KAREN J. BRADLEY/S
SIGNATURE OF COURT REPORTER

01/19/2024
DATE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Case 2:22-cr-00076-JRG-CRW

Document 79
PageID #: 938

Filed 01/25/24

Page 51 of 51

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.tned.105535.79.0.pdf

Size

209,647 bytes

SHA-256

acb973a9f8ee5d88640b71a2e629a081d6d1abc9b681738a0f998c4408559c9f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.tned.105535.79.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)