Court filing
Defendant's Position on Sentencing Factors — United States v. Craig David Davis
No. 1:24-cr-00040-PTG · Doc. 46 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 1 of 11 PageID# 254
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Case No.: 1:24CR-40
CRAIG DAVIS,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S POSITION ON SENTENCING FACTORS
Pursuant to Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Section 6A1.3 of the
United States Sentencing Guidelines (“Guidelines”), and this Court’s Policy Regarding
Procedures to be Followed in Guideline Sentencing, the Defendant, Craig Davis, through
counsel, states that he has received and reviewed the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”)
prepared in this case.
On August 23, 2024, Mr. Davis entered a guilty plea to one count of Wire Fraud. On the
same date, a PSR was ordered to be completed.
The pre-sentence report calculates Mr. Davis’ total offense level to be thirty (30), and a
corresponding sentencing range 108-135.
For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Davis submits that a sentence of no more than
twenty-four (24) months of incarceration followed by three (3) years of supervised release is
sufficient to meet the aims of sentencing.
I. GUIDELINE CALCULATION
Mr. Davis, pursuant to the plea agreement, reserved the right to present argument against the
application of a guideline adjustment under the “sophisticated means” provisions detailed in
U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). After careful review of the provisions and established case law in
1
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 2 of 11 PageID# 255
the Fourth Circuit, it is clear that accord to legal precedent that the Courts have viewed Mr.
Davis’ conduct as sufficient to warrant the application of the increase. The application and
interpretation of what is sophisticated is broad and far reaching. Over the past decade there have
been several advancements in technology which make actions far less “sophisticated” then in
previous times. Common technology makes it much easier to create or alter documents using
common place applications such as adobe.
In addition, this principal is also true as it pertains to the creation of business. All states
encourage business ownership and have actively sought to remove hurdles that deter or slow
down the process of starting business. Many state corporation commissions allow for
applications and supporting documentation to be submitted on line. Filing fees can be paid via
online credit card processing and business operating documents can be submitted within minutes.
The actions which required sophistication in the past, simply aren’t that difficult anymore.
While it is understood that the application may be properly applied, Mr. Davis requests that
this court consider this information as it contemplates what would be an appropriate sentence.
II. APPLICATION OF U.S.C. §3553(a) FACTORS
In United States v. Booker the Supreme Court ruled that its Sixth Amendment holdings in
Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 2531 (2004) and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 455 (2000)
applied to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756
(2005). The Court further held that the provisions of the Federal Sentencing Reform Act of 1984
that make the Guidelines mandatory or which rely upon the Guidelines' mandatory nature, were
incompatible with its Sixth Amendment holding. Booker, 125 S.Ct. at 756. As a result, the Court
severed and excised those provisions, “mak[ing] the Guidelines effectively advisory.” 125 S.Ct.
at 757.
2
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 3 of 11 PageID# 256
Primarily due to the Supreme Court's recent sentencing pronouncements in Gall v. United
States, 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007) and Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007), the
sentencing options available to district court judges have “significantly broadened.” United
States v. Moon, 513 F.3d 527, 544 (6th Cir. 2008), quoting Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 602. District courts
are now free from any requirement to mechanically adhere to the strict structures of the
guidelines, nor are courts required to even presume that the guidelines provide an appropriate
sentence in a given case.
Recognizing that the guidelines are simply the “starting point” in a sentencing analysis,
district courts must delve deeper and make an “individualized assessment based on the facts
presented.” Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 597. In making an individualized assessment, the district court is
required to consider all the factors outlined in 18 U.S.C.A. §3553(a) and is permitted to tailor the
sentence in light of other statutory concerns. Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 570. A district court may
reasonably determine that a within guidelines sentence does not serve the objectives of
sentencing, even if that determination ultimately rests on a disagreement with the guidelines.
Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct. at 564. See United States v. Pugh, 515 F.3d 1179, 1190-91 (11th Cir.
2008).
In the final analysis, the goal of performing an individualized sentencing assessment is to
arrive at a just sentence, one “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” 18 U.S.C.A. §3553(a),
to serve the purposes of sentencing set forth in §3553(a)(2). United States v. McBride, 511 F.3d
1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007). The sentencing court is “free to conclude that the applicable
guideline range gives too much or too little weight to one or more factors, either as applied in a
particular case or as a matter of policy.” United States v. Campos-Maldanado, 531 F.3d. 337 (5th
Cir. 2008).
3
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 4 of 11 PageID# 257
A district court must give respectful consideration of the guidelines in determining a
sufficient sentence, Gall, 128 S.Ct. at 594, but it may not presume that the guideline sentence is
the correct one. Rita v. United States, 127 U.S. 2456, 2465 (2007). The court is free to consider
whether the guideline sentence itself “fails to properly reflect §3553(a) considerations” in the
case at hand, Rita, 127 S.Ct. at 2465, and/or whether the guidelines at issue exemplifies the
Sentencing Commission's “exercise of its characteristic institutional role.” Kimbrough, 128 S.Ct.
at 575.
As the guidelines are now advisory, this Court is not constrained from imposing an
individualized sentence that does not exceed the statutory ceiling.
In Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), the Supreme Court held that the
Sentencing Guidelines are simply an advisory tool to be considered alongside other statutory
factors detailed in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). Courts must consider the recommended guideline range
as one of seven co-equal statutory sentencing factors referenced in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). United
States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 259-60 (2005). The factors to be considered are: (a) the nature
and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, (b) the
kinds of sentences available, (c) the guideline range, (d) the need to avoid unwarranted
sentencing disparities, (e) the need for restitution, and (f) the need for the sentence to reflect the
seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide for just punishment for the
offense, to afford adequate deterrence, to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant
and to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or
other correctional treatment. See 18 U.S.C. §3553(a). After considering these factors, the Court
has discretion to differ with the U.S.S.G.’s custody range, See Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct.
2456 (2007). Furthermore, the sentencing courts must impose the minimum sentence that is
4
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 5 of 11 PageID# 258
sufficient to accomplish the objectives of §3553(a). A sentence of no more than twenty-four (24)
months is appropriate following a consideration of the 3553(a) factors.
A. The Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
Mr. Davis has pled guilty to the federal offense of committing wire fraud. Mr. Davis’ illegal
conduct included the submission of loan applications under The Cares Act, which contained false
statements and incorporated manufactured documents. Mr. Davis applied for the fraudulent loans
using a shell corporation called Bright Vanguard that he created. His fraud scheme spanned less
than one year. The fraudulent applications resulted in the payout of several loans for an extensive
amount of money. The false documents included tax returns, client ledgers, employee records,
and payroll documentation. The false statements included the failure to disclose a plea to a
felony in Texas in 2017.
Mr. Davis is also taking responsibilities for his actions that involved the submission of
fraudulent computer equipment loans. Mr. Davis and others agreed to submit applications for
loans which were supported by manufactured invoices for computer equipment. The applications
claimed that the loan proceeds would be used to said invoices. The loans were approved based
largely on the belief that the computer equipment would be collateral. Mr. Davis assisted with
facilitating the loans by finding the appropriate lender and creating the invoices. In return, Mr.
Davis received a percentage of the tendered loan. In several cases, the companies would continue
to pay the loan notes as they became due. Despite their efforts, the Covid pandemic caused many
of the companies to default on the loans. After the default, the lending institutions were unable to
locate the alleged collateral that the companies claimed to be purchasing.
B. The History and Characteristics of the Defendant
5
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 6 of 11 PageID# 259
Mr. Davis is fifty (50) years old and currently lives in Los Angeles California. Mr. Davis was
born from the marital union of his parents Roger Davis and Cheryl Deakder. The two remained
married for forty (40) years. Mr. Davis grew up in a loving home with his younger sister Melissa.
Mr. Davis recalls a positive family life but notes that his father and grandfather both suffered
from hereditary mental health illnesses. At times the illness would cause his father to become
verbally abusive and overbearing. Roger Davis was a very successful man and was strict about
his children also ascertaining the same level of success. Despite this, Mr. Davis recognizes that
he had a good childhood with overall positive experiences. He values the opportunity to travel
and cultural experiences he obtained during his childhood. He is also grateful that his parents
were present and supportive of him. He maintains contact with both his parents and sister. Mr.
Davis also recalls that due to familial expectations, he always felt pressure to obtain the same
level of success as his father. This expectation resulted in Mr. Davis obtaining his first job at the
age of thirteen (13) at a neighborhood retail store. Mr. Davis, even as a child, worked hard to
prove that he could also be successful and independent.
Mr. Davis was very active during his school aged years. He maintained a thriving social life
and was an accomplished athlete. He played football and basketball throughout high school and
entered college when he was only seventeen years old. He initially attended Tulane University
but left due to struggles. He enrolled in Broward Community College and was accepted into
Florida International University. Mr. Davis’ struggles with collegiate academics continued and
were mostly rooted in his attempts to balance a desire to generate income with the need to focus
on his studies. Mr. Davis eventually withdrew from school and subsequently began working at a
car dealership. Mr. Davis started in the sales department and quickly proved his value to the
company. Over the next several years, Mr. Davis continued to hone his skills as a salesman and
6
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 7 of 11 PageID# 260
manger at car dealerships. He was well respected and subsequently became general manager of a
dealership at the young age of twenty-four (24). He continued to work in this industry for over
fifteen (15) years.
Mr. Davis was previously married to Naibeth Davis. The two met in Florida and developed a
strong connection. Mr. Davis was committed to Naibeth and her two children. He made this love
and commitment evident when he made the decision to adopt her children from a previous
marriage. Mr. Davis and Naibeth also had one more child. There youngest daughter is currently
eleven (11) years old. The older two are now adults but maintain frequent contact with Mr.
Davis. Mr. Davis’ children are the most important part of his life, and he has always maintained
a strong relationship with each of them. He was actively supportive of both of his older children
as they dealt with substance abuse issues as young adults. He was empathetic to their struggles,
because he had also experienced addiction as a young adult. His children believe the support and
life experiences he was able to share were a factor in helping them achieve sobriety.
Throughout the years, Mr. Davis and the children have enjoyed hiking, family gatherings,
concerts, beach days, zoo trips, and sporting activities. He currently sees his youngest child
weekly on Sunday, Wednesday, and Saturday at a minimum. He is currently helping her design a
website.
Mr. Davis has spent much of the past year reflecting on past decisions and the future
direction of his life. He is seeking to uncover the true motives for his bad decisions, so that he
will never make these mistakes again. Mr. Davis is currently in discussions with counselors and
discussing his past mistakes and current predicament. Mr. Davis speaks with his father on a
weekly basis and discusses unresolved issues with him as well.
7
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 8 of 11 PageID# 261
Mr. Davis’ goal is to live a life that his children would be proud of. He understands that his
intense fear of failure can be just as harmful as actually failing at something. He plans to live a
life as a productive, and law-abiding citizen. He is intent on avoiding negative connections and
past relationships that he developed while participating in fraud.
C. The Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Basic Aims of Sentencing: “just
punishment,” deterrence, and rehabilitation
Mr. Davis is currently fifty (50) years old. He is one of many defendants that have been
arrested, prosecuted, and convicted of wire fraud in respect to the Cares Act programs. The
district has sentenced dozens of defendants for their actions that were similar to Mr. Davis’. A
survey of some of the defendants is as follows:
DEFENDANT LOSS AMOUNT ADVISORY SENTENCE
GUIDELINE
RANGE
Quin Rudin 100,000,000 151-188 months 120 months
Thanh Rudin 100,000,000 78-97 months 34 months
Seir Havana 100,000,000 78-97 months 42 months
Clayton Rosenberg 9,300,000 63-78 months 63 months
Jenna Mitchum 5,800,000 51-63 months 48 months
Malik Mitchum 5,800,000 51-63 months 51 months
The majority of defendants receive sentences short of the recommended guideline range, and
certainly less than the ninety-seven (97) months of incarceration that the Government has
requested in their filing.
John Michael Felts is an individual who was closely tied to Mr. Davis. The two were
once friends. Mr. Felts was also involved in a fraud scheme that targeted the Cares Act
8
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 9 of 11 PageID# 262
programs. Mr. Felt’s actions resulted in an intended loss amount of close to $14,000,000. The
actual lose amount was $8,173,736. Mr. Felts used the proceeds of his fraud to live a luxurious
lifestyle. He purchased six (6) vehicles, an upscale yacht, rare sports memorabilia, Rolex
watches, and other expensive jewelry. He was convicted of wire fraud and sentenced by the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri on December 17, 2024. The court sentenced
him to twenty-four (24) months of incarceration. It would be not be just for Mr. Davis to receive
a sentence that is more than six (6) years longer than John Felts.
Mr. Davis has never served any time in a correctional institute. He has spent most of his
life either in school, working in various fields, and as a supportive father. He has been dealing
with the sobering reality that his actions will result in this Court sentencing him to serve some
period of incarceration. In reality, it does not take extensive jail to for an individual in Mr. Davis’
position to be deterred from future criminal conduct. Mr. Davis realizes that he will lose
irreplaceable time with family and loved ones. He understands that his actions were selfish, and
the consequences will affect his family as well.
Mr. Davis is remorseful for his actions, and understands how his fraudulent conduct
effects this country, financial institutions, and every day citizens. Mr. Davis is fully committed to
following through with the payment of as much restitution as he can. He has plans to resume
employment after release and will follow through with his responsibilities under the restitution
order.
A sentence of twenty-four (24) months is sufficient to meet the aims of sentencing in this
matter and avoids any unwarranted disparity for Mr. Davis’ actions.
CONCLUSION
9
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 10 of 11 PageID# 263
For the reasons stated above, Mr. Davis requests that this court sentence him to a period of
no more than twenty-four (24) months of incarceration, with credit for any time served. In
addition, Mr. Davis request that he be recommended for participation in the RDAP program, and
that he be allowed to serve his sentence at a Bureau in Prison as close Los Angeles, California as
possible. It is Mr. Davis’ position that this sentence is sufficient to accomplish the objectives of
sentencing as detailed in 18 U.S.C. §3553(a).
Respectfully Submitted,
CRAIG DAVIS
By Counsel
By:_______/s/________________
Jonathan A. Simms (VSB 75663)
The Simms Firm, PLC
11325 Random Hills Road
Suite 360
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Ph (703) 383-0636
(703) 225-3333
jsimms@simmsfirm.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on January 10, 2025, I will electronically file the foregoing pleading
with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will then send a notification of
such filing (NEF) to the following:
Kathleen E. Robeson
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
Justin W. Williams U.S. Attorney’s Building
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: 703-299-3700
10
Case 1:24-cr-00040-PTG Document 46 Filed 01/10/25 Page 11 of 11 PageID# 264
Email: kathleen.robeson@usdoj.gov
David A. Peters
Trial Attorney
Criminal Division
Fraud Section, Department of Justice
2100 Jamieson Avenue
Alexandria, VA 22314
Telephone: 703-299-3700
By:_______/s/________________
Jonathan A. Simms (VSB 75663)
The Simms Firm, PLC
11325 Random Hills Road
Suite 360
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Ph (703) 383-0636
(703) 225-3333
jsimms@simmsfirm.com
11
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.vaed.549455.46.0.pdf
- Size
- 157,103 bytes
- SHA-256
- b12883976084fc99e7c54bc5bd4bf66bc7fb556cf760735db1ab37f9618f6ca1
- Original
- PACER (login required)