Pro Se Hybrid Motion with Objections to Pre-Sentence Report — United States v. Christopher Scott

Summary

Christopher Scott filed this pro se Hybrid Motion With Objections to Pre-Sentence Report on 06/30/25 (Document 93, Case No. 1:23-cr-97, Northern District of Illinois), saying retained counsel Joshua Adams had not met to prepare PSR objections since April 18, 2025 and had texted not to worry about deadlines. The motion says Mr. Scott pled guilty on April 4, 2025 to Count 5, Wire Fraud. It objects that the PSR adds $1.4 million intended loss to $393,000 actual loss instead of using the greater figure under Amendment 827, contests enhancements for treating a day care center as an educational organization and for obstruction of justice through alleged intimidation of Secret Service agent Lydia Sizemore, and disputes criminal history points and government claims of a mailbox break-in and of seven PPP loans rather than 4. Exhibits include text messages with counsel.

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

Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:338
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FILED
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS [initials] JUN 30 2025
THOMAS G. BRUTON
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CASE No.: 1:23-cr-97
VS.
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT
Defendant.
HYBRID MOTION WITH OBJECTIONS TO PRE-SENTENCE REPORT
NOW COMES, The Defendant, Christopher Scott, with this Hybrid Motion With
Objections to Pre-Sentence Report. Mr. Scott is represented by Joshua Adams. Mr.
Scott has made several documented attempts, dating back to April 18, 2025 to speak
with Mr. Adams, retained counsel in regards to his case, sentencing and PSR
challenges (see exhibit) to no avail.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Scott was originally charged with four (4) counts of wire fraud, radio or
television, as part of a 14 count indictment. Ultimately, the defendant pled guilty on April
4, 2025 to Count 5, Wire Fraud. The rest of the charges were dropped. Mr. Scott has
tried repeatedly to meet with Mr. Adams in regards to sentencing, sentencing mitigation,
sentencing memorandum and preparing objections to PSR. Adams has not had a
meeting or meaningful conversation with the defendant since April 18, 2025.
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:339
Mr. Scott received a copy of his PSR on May 23, 2025 therefore objections
should have been lodged with The Court by June 4, 2025. Mr. Adams told the defendant
he had until June 25, 2025 and even then Adams has texted Mr. Scott saying:
“Good Morning I’m out of town, do you want to go over in person or on phone? In
person lets meet next week. I can get extensions and don’t worry about deadlines”. [in
regards to rules of criminal procedure and deadlines from this honorable court](See
exhibit). This message was received on June 24, 2025 after repeated texts and
voicemail messages to lodge these objections to the PSR.
HYBRID MOTION
In United States v. Jones, 938 F.2d 737, the court permitted a form of hybrid
representation where the defendant, dissatisfied with her counsel, was allowed to file
pro se documents that the court would consider alongside her counsel's representation.
This was granted as a discretionary measure, not as a right, and was contingent on the
specific circumstances of the case United States v. Jones, 938 F.2d 737. Similarly, in
United States v. James, 487 F.3d 518, the court allowed the defendant to argue his pro
se motions to supplement those filed by his attorney, considering his intelligence and the
effort he had put into his filings.
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:340
Because Mr. Adams continues to ignore Mr. Scott's pleas for counsel he has no
choice but to bring this hybrid motion. Furthermore, Scott does not want to appear ill
prepared in the face of The Court after being told “don’t worry about deadlines”. So he
shall proceed with his objections to the pre-sentence report at this time.
OBJECTIONS TO PRE-SENTENCE REPORT
|. Actual Loss v Intended Loss; the Greater of the two (2): Amendment 827
The PSR stipulates that the total intended loss is $1.8 million dollars in totality,
stemming from $1.4 million intended loss & $393,000 actual loss. The objection is that
under the new amendment 827 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG)
states specifically, that loss for the purposes of economic crimes is the greater of the two
(2), intended loss or actual loss in a case, not an aggregate of both.
Therefore, by properly assessing the greater of the two (2), under the guidelines
of the new amendment, Scott would not be subject to a 16 point enhancement, but
rather a 14 point enhancement. As per Amendment 827, the Court should go with the
greater of the two (2). In this case, that would be the intended loss of 1.4m. Thus,
Scott would be below the category of an intended loss of 1.5m-3.5m, and be given the
14 point enhancement instead of the 16 point enhancement.
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:341
As such, Scott's intended loss of 1.4m is below the 1.5m required for the 16 point
enhancement, and thus being at the 1.4m intended loss, he would only have 12 points
instead of 16.
Il. SR incor 2 point enhancement by classifying the “Da
Care” center operation as an “educational organization”.
In matters like this the Federal Court falls back to the state law classification. In
this case the state of Illinois does NOT consider day care centers an “educational
organization” as they do not receive the same benefits as educational organizations.
Under the Illinois childcare act “any institution or place... which receives more than 3
children under 18 years of age for care for less than 24 hours per day, apart from the
parents.” (1. Child Care Act of 1969 (225 ILCS 10/2.09). In this case the two point
enhancement should not be assessed.
lll. The government is proposing an enhancement for “obstruction of justice” through the
alleged. “intimidation of a US Secret Service agent”.
During the conduct of this instant offense Mr. Scott went to the bank where the
bank teller told him that a woman’s name and number appeared in tandem with his on
the account. Suspecting fraud, and expecting a civilian, Scott texted this name and
number the following:
Scott: Hello Ma’am | called you last week and I’m trying to see why your number
is [illegible] my bank account?
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:342
Scott: Hello
Scott: Yoooooo
Scott: Let me do some more digging
After receiving a letter in the mail in regards to the seizure or “freezing” of the
bank account from Secret Service, Scott added these two lines to the text stream none
of which are “intimidating”
Scott: Secret Service
Scott: Lydia Sizemore
Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) Definition Intimidating (adj.): “Causing fear
or apprehension; inspiring fearfulness; tending to coerce or deter by threats.”
As The Court can see from this transcription and attached exhibit there
are no elements of intimidation in this text message stream from the
defendant.
IV. Two points assessed for “being on probation” when catching this instant offense.
In 2023 the United States Sentencing Commision (USSC) codified an
amendment called 821 where Part A requires a two point deduction or two point
downward variance for assessing points while on probation. There is no reason that
Scott does not qualify for this deduction.
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:343
V. Objection to Criminal History Points (entry 58)
The charge in question (Access Device Fraud) was 4/28/03. Mr. Scott was
released from federal supervised release in March 2007 over 15 years, therefore this
event should be assessed 0 criminal history points.
VI. Objection to Allegation of Breaking into Locked mailbox/es)
In (D.E. # 92, Page 3) the Government sets-forth that the Defendant ...”Scott
likely broke into a locked mailbox or a legitimate company called EZLinks Golf
Holdings, LLC, stole a check issued to this small [illegible] The Government is
well aware that the Defendant stated that he was handed these particular checks
during an interview with the government. The Defendant never stated that he had
broken into any locked mailbox(es). The Defendant objects to this erroneous detail by
the government where it could prejudice the defendant during sentencing, causing a
possible uncharged conduct enhancement.
[illegible] Objection to alleged 7 Loans ( Document #92 Page 7,
The defendant only was involved in 4 PPP loans, not seven (7). The 393K of
actual loss listed as culpability by the defendant encompassed only 4 PPP loans. The
Government is fully aware of this fact and attempting to add an additional 3 PPP loans
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:344
to make a total of seven (7), will affect the defendant during sentencing and possibly
increase the guideline range of sentencing. The Defendant objects to being involved in
7 PPP loans.
VIIl. Objection to (D.E. # 92 Page 8), where the government states that the defendant's
company, Opulent Credit Builders is a fraudulent company.
The defendant owns this company and it has been legitimately running since
2010. It is a legally registered company with the Divisions of Corporations in the State
of Illinois. No reason why the government should state that it’s a fraudulent company.
This can affect the defendant with relevant conduct or 404b style culpability during
sentencing.
See. (D.E. # 92 Page 8). The circumstances were motivated by necessity....not
greed. The government became aware of this when the defendant was interviewed by
the government. The defendant explained that he was going through a financial
hardship. The Defendant detailed the specifics during the interviews with the
government. The defendant never stated that he committed the alleged offenses due to
greed but rather he stated that there were financial hardship situations he was facing.
He would like mitigating circumstances to be considered in this regard.
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:345
CONCLUSION
Scott has tried repeatedly to speak with counsel in regards to this case and these
challenges however he has not responded, set a meeting either by phone or in person.
Further, he has advised the defendant that deadlines were not important. At this time
Scott does wish to lodge these objections to the pre-sentence report and ask for a 90
day continuance so that he and Mr. Adams can adequately prepare for sentencing.
The Defendant does not believe that the 96 month proposed sentence by the PSI
is correct, with the proper adjustments, the defendant should be closer to a 44-56 month
sentence under the circumstances surrounding this cause.
Dated: June 30, 2025 Respectfully Submitted,
Is/ 4
Christopher Scott
11060 Frances Lane
Palos Park, IL 60464
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:346
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I swear under the penalty of perjury that I have mailed and caused to be served a
copy of the foregoing pleading upon the AUSA in the case, at the U.S. Attorney's Office,
Northern District of Illinois & the U.S. Clerk of Court, Northern District of Illinois, to
forward to all interested parties in this case through the ECF. On this 49 [illegible] Day of
June 2025. In Palos Park, IL 60464.
Christopher Scott
Case: wi [illegible] Document #: 93 Filed: 06/30/25 Page 10 [illegible] 11 PageID #:347
Today makes the 12 day |
Tuesday 9:46 AM
[illegible] Good morning. we have to go [illegible]
[illegible] over the PSI and the last date
to do that | see is tomorrow.
I've been calling you and you
haven't answered my calls at
all: I've paid you In full
Good morning. [illegible] out of town
do you want to go over in
person or on phone? If in
person let's meet next week. I
can get extensions and do not
worry about deadlines
Thanks so much for
responding back to me. Let's
go over it in person please
when you get back
Delivered
[illegible] ® [illegible]
* [illegible]
Case: [illegible] Deoument#: 93 Filledt: OG/20/25 Paye 5 [illegible]
Eyhibd [illegible]
In that regard, the government submits herewith as Exhibit 2 an additional law
enforcement report detailing Scott’s efforts to intimidate the former U.S. Secret
Service case agent Lydia Sizemore in May 2021, by, among other methods, calling
her repeatedly and texting her “Hello...Yooooo...Let me do some more
digging...Secret Service...Lydia Sizemore.” A screenshot from Agent Sizemore’s
government issued cell phone obtained near the date of the incident is below:
7:05 ast [illegible]
[illegible]
Today [illegible]
‘Hello Ma‘am, I called you last
_ week and I'm trying to see why
your number Is on my bank
accaunt?
Tadiey 1.53 [illegible]
-Hello
Yooooo
Let me do some more digging
Today [illegible] PM
[illegible] Secret Service
Lydia Sizemore
See Ex. 2 at 2. The PSR also refers to this incident. PSR [illegible] 23.


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ilnd.430448.93.0.pdf

Size

790,819 bytes

SHA-256

d69cf0fe2f0463fde67626ec5364999a85f841ee5e8da99fda01f0b3c5a2019f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ilnd.430448.93.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)