Court filing
Christopher Scott's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Christopher Scott
Summary
A defense sentencing memorandum filed August 13, 2025 by Christopher Scott through attorney Joshua B. Adams in United States v. Christopher Scott, No. 1:23-cr-00097, before Judge Elaine E. Bucklo in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, as Document 99. It asks the court to set a total offense level of 16 with Criminal History Category VI and impose a sentence of 24-months imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The memorandum objects to the presentence report's loss amount of $1,868,933.00, arguing for the actual loss of $393,333, and to a 2-level enhancement for acting on behalf of an educational organization. It states the advisory guidelines recommend 84-105 months, cites the defendant's proffers to law enforcement, and cites IRS statistics in Exhibit A on sentences in COVID-related cases. The memorandum is eight 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
No. 1:23-cr-00097 · Doc. 99 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:360
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
v. ) 23 CR 97
) Hon. Elaine E. Bucklo
)
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT. )
CHRISTOPHER SCOTT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
NOW COMES Defendant, CHRISTOPHER SCOTT, by and through his
attorney, JOSHUA B. ADAMS, and respectfully requests, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3553(a), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), that this
Honorable Court set Mr. Scott’s total offense level at 16, with a Criminal
History Category VI, and impose a sentence of 24-months imprisonment. Such
sentence is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the
purposes of sentencing set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). In support of this
request, Mr. Scott states the following.
I. SENTENCING REQUEST
Mr. Scott has worked hard since his release from custody in 2010.
Despite being charged in a state case while on supervised release, Mr. Scott
has tried to rebuild his life since his prison sentence. He works in real estate
development and credit repair. Mr. Scott is both ashamed and remorseful for
his conduct before this court. A sentence of -months incarceration accounts for
1
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:361
the nature and circumstances of this offense and allows Mr. Scott to repay his
financial debt and argues this sentence is sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the directives of § 3553(a).
II. Objections to advisory guideline range
1. Mr. Scott objects to the loss amount calculation
The PSI adds 16-points to the total offense level because it calculates
the total loss amount at $1,868,933.00. PSI, ¶31. It is Mr. Scott’s position
that the total loss amount should be calculated by the actual loss, which is
$393,333. Mr. Scott acknowledges the Seventh Circuit has held that
The word “loss” is not defined in § 2B1.1(b)(1) itself. Application
Note 3 in the commentary to § 2B1.1, however, explains that “loss
is the greater of actual loss or intended loss.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 cmt.
n.3(A). The note goes on to define “actual loss” as “the reasonably
foreseeable pecuniary harm that resulted from the
offense,” id. cmt. n.3(A)(i), and “intended loss” as “the pecuniary
harm that the defendant purposely sought to inflict; and includes
intended pecuniary harm that would have been impossible or
unlikely to occur.” Id. cmt. n.3(A)(ii) (internal numbering omitted).
United States v. Ponle, 110 F.4th 958 (7th Cir. 2024). It is Mr. Scott’s
position that because restitution is based on the actual loss amount, so
should his loss amount for purposes of guidelines calculations. Mr. Scott
understands this is in direct contradiction to the established Seventh
Circuit case law.
2
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:362
2. Mr. Scott objects to the 2-level enhancement for acting on behalf of
an educational organization.
The PSI assigns 2-points because “the fraud involved in this case
included a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of an
educational organization.” PSI.,¶32. It is Mr. Scott’s position that a
Montessori school is not an “educational organization” as defined under the
Illinois School Code
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ILCS/details?MajorTopic=&Chapter=&ActNa
me=School%20Code.&ActID=1005&ChapterID=17&SeqStart=&&ChapAct=F
ullText. (last visited 7/18/2025). Therefore, according to Mr. Scott, this
enhancement should not apply. As the parties did not contemplate this either
in the plea agreement, this honorable court should not consider it either.
III. A SENTENCE OF 24-MONTHS IMPRISONMENT BEST
ACCOMPLISHES THE GOALS OF 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
In United States v. Booker, the Supreme Court effectively rendered the
United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) advisory. 543 U.S. 220 (2005).
However, the sentencing court is required to follow the list of factors
enumerated in § 3553(a). In Rita v. United States, the Court held that district
court judges are required “to ‘impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the basic aims of sentencing in § 3553(a).” 127 S.Ct.
3
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:363
at 2469.
Post-Booker, the district court should place “no limitation” on the
information concerning the background, character, and conduct of a person
convicted of an offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3661; Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 760. There
are several “individual characteristics . . . not ordinarily considered under the
Guidelines,” but are still “matters that § 3553(a) authorizes the sentencing
judge to consider.” Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2473 (Stevens, J., concurring).
The Court must impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2), “ which are
“the need for the sentence imposed—
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for
the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense.
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or
vocational training, medical care, or other correctional
treatment in the most effective manner.”
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). In “determining the particular sentence to be imposed,”
the Court must consider these purposes, the nature and circumstances of the
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need to avoid
unwarranted disparities, and the need to provide restitution to any victims of
the offense. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)-(7).
With these principles in mind, we turn to Mr. Scott’s proposed
sentence.
4
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:364
1. Nature and Circumstances of the offense
There is no doubt this is a serious offense. Congress enacted the PPP to
help distressed business during the COVID pandemic. Mr. Scott took
advantage of that for his own personal gain. He is both extremely remorseful
and ashamed of his conduct. Mr. Scott truthfully admitted his own conduct in
this offense and attempted to assist law enforcement through several proffers
to uncover other pandemic era frauds and other related financial crimes. While
the information Mr. Scott provided did not lead to charges against individuals,
his post arrest conduct shows a willingness to assist law enforcement, and true
remorse. He provided truthful and complete information to agents and did not
minimize his own conduct.
Unlike his prior fraud case, Mr. Scott actively sought to cooperate with
the federal government. He did so because he realizes this is not the way he
wants to lead his life. He wants to spend it with family and enjoy his freedom.
2. Christopher’s personal history and characteristics
Christopher is a devoted father and has worked hard to regain the trust
of his friends and family after his previous term of incarceration. Chris has
started various business including credit repair services. He has written books
about financial independence and has worked hard to lead a law-abiding life
after his prison sentence. Unfortunately, he took advantage of the PPP loan
program during COVID and risks unravelling all his hard work over the past
5
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:365
decade.
3. The need for specific deterrence
In this case, specific deterrence is perhaps the most significant factor laid
out in §3553(a). Chris is at a Criminal History VI and had a previous federal
conviction for fraud. However, this case is different. Unlike his previous cases,
this time Chris cooperated with law enforcement to uncover other PPP fraud,
as well as other unrelated financial crimes in the Northern District of Illinois.
While his information did not lead to any new charges, his intent was clear.
Chris does not want to continue this way of life, and risk separation from his
family as a result of his criminal conduct.
In determining the sentence necessary to protect the public and deter
future criminal conduct, a district court may note the length of any previous
sentences imposed upon the defendant. United States v. Qualls, 373 F.Supp.2d
873, 877 (E.D. Wis. 2005).
In Gall, the Supreme Court warned that imposition of an unnecessary
sentence “may work to promote not respect, but derision, of the law if the law
is viewed as merely the means to dispense harsh punishment without taking
into account the real conduct and circumstance involved in sentencing.” 522
U.S. 38, 54 (2007). A sentence within the applicable Guidelines range would
impose a term of imprisonment of unnecessary length, which risks derision of
the law.
6
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:366
4. A 24-month sentence of incarceration adequately punishes Chris
Here, Mr. Scott is statutorily eligible for a sentence of 1-5 years of
probation on Count One. 18 U.S.C. § 3561(c)(1). The advisory guidelines
recommend a sentence of 84-105 months’ imprisonment.
Finally, while the guidelines range is the starting place, the judge “may
not presume that the Guidelines range is reasonable.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 50
(emphasis added). “[T]he Guidelines are only one of the factors to consider
when imposing sentence, and § 3553(a)(3) directs the judge to consider
sentences other than imprisonment.” Id. at 59.
5. A guideline sentence would be higher than similarly situated
defendants
A guideline sentence for Mr. Scott would result in a higher sentence than
defendants similarly situated to him. According to IRS statistics, as of
February 2024, the 373 convicted of COVID related crimes have been
sentenced to an average of 34 months imprisonment. See Ex. A.
https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-criminal-investigation-releases-updated-
covid-fraud-statistics-on-4th-anniversary-of-cares-act-nearly-9-billion-
investigated (last visited 8/13/2025). Exhibit A gives two examples of
individuals who were responsible for loss amounts in the millions and received
sentences of 9 and 10 years respectfully. Mr. Scott’s actual loss is $393,333. A
guidelines sentence for him would create a sentencing disparity among
7
Case: 1:23-cr-00097 Document #: 99 Filed: 08/13/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:367
similarly situated defendants charged with similar COVID fraud cases.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Scott respectfully submits that a sentence
of 24-months incarceration is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to
satisfy the purposes of sentencing.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Joshua B. Adams
Joshua B. Adams
Counsel for Christopher Scott
LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. ADAMS, P.C.
900 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 7 East
Chicago, IL 60607
(312) 566-9173
8
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.ilnd.430448.99.0.pdf
- Size
- 252,294 bytes
- SHA-256
- df4975cf081393568332a608ac6007a41761d80296285908d7d5191bdb1f6df6
- Original
- PACER (login required)