Court filing
United States' Response in Opposition to First Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release — United States v. Denis Casseus
No. 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF · Doc. 95 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 1 of 8 PageID 474
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 2:23-cr-9-TPB-KCD
DENIS CASSEUS
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DENIS CASSEUS’S MOTION FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE
The United States of America, by Gregory W. Kehoe, United States Attorney
for the Middle District of Florida, files this response in opposition to Defendant
Denis Casseus’s motion for early termination of supervised release (Doc. 94), and
would state in support as follows:
FACTS
1. On January 25, 2023, the grand jury returned an Indictment charging
the defendant with two counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2;
two counts of false statement to lending institution, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1014
and 2; and one count of illegal monetary transaction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1957 and 2. Doc. 1.
2. On May 23, 2023, the defendant entered a guilty to Counts One and
Two, which charged bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2, and Count
Five, which charged illegal monetary transaction, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1957
and 2. Doc. 30 and 35.
1
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 2 of 8 PageID 475
3. On October 20, 2023, the defendant was sentenced to a term of 24
months of imprisonment, a term of supervised release for three years to follow was
ordered, and the defendant was ordered to pay $116,495.45 in restitution. 1 Doc. 59.
The Court ordered that the defendant not commit another federal, state, or local
crime, and the defendant was ordered to pay restitution. Id. While on supervised
release, the defendant is required to report to the probation officer as instructed, and
the defendant must answer truthfully questions asked by his probation officer. Id.
Further, the defendant is required to work full time, and the defendant is prohibited
from communicating or interacting with anyone he knows is engaged in criminal
activity. Id. The Court ordered that the defendant was prohibited from incurring
new credit charges, opening additional lines of credit, or making an obligation for
any major purchases without approval of his probation officer. Doc. 59. Further,
while on supervised release, the defendant is required to provide his probation officer
access to any requested financial information. Id.
4. On November 7, 2025, the defendant filed a motion for early
termination of supervised release. Doc. 94.
5. On November 14, 2025, the government consulted with Theresa
Maisano, a Supervisory United States Probation Officer, concerning the defendant’s
motion for early termination of supervised release. Maisano advised that the
1
On October 20, 2023, the defendant’s partner, Ismaelle Manuel, was sentenced to a term of five years of
supervised release for committing three counts of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 2. United States
v. Ismaelle Manuel, Case No. 2:23-cr-3-TPB-KCD, Doc. 67. The total amount of PPP loan proceeds fraudulently
obtained by Ismaelle Manuel in the scheme was $411,417.00. United States v. Ismaelle Manuel, Case No. 2:23-cr-
3-TPB-KCD, Doc. 32.
2
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 3 of 8 PageID 476
defendant began his term of supervised release on February 18, 2025, and his term of
supervision is not scheduled to expire until February 17, 2028. The defendant has
not even completed one year of supervised release at this time. Maisano advised that
the defendant still owed restitution, and the probation office would not support the
defendant’s request for early termination of supervised release at this time.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3583(e):
The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), and
(a)(2)(B), (a)(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(5), (a)(6), and (a)(7) –
(1) Terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant released at
any time after the expiration of one year of supervised release, pursuant to the
provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the
modification of probation, if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the
conduct of the defendant released and the interest of justice. . . .
18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
After considering the nature and circumstances of the offenses that this
defendant was convicted of, this case does not warrant early termination of
supervised release. The defendant’s convictions involved the defendant submitting
two fraudulent PPP loan applications to a financial institution on behalf of two
purported businesses, of which Denis Casseus claimed to be the president and
registered agent, seeking PPP loans through the SBA. Doc. 30. The defendant
falsely represented and certified that the PPP funds acquired from each of the
requested loans would be used to retain workers and maintain payroll or make
mortgage payments, lease payments, and utility payments on behalf of his
3
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 4 of 8 PageID 477
businesses. Id. In total, Denis Casseus’s false and fraudulent representations caused
the financial institution to approve and fund a total of $298,875.00 in PPP loans for
the two businesses. Id. The defendant was the sole signor on the bank accounts that
the PPP funds were deposited into. Id. Casseus conducted several online transfers
from each of the bank accounts of the businesses into his personal bank account.
Doc. 30. The defendant used the fraudulently obtained PPP funds that had been
transferred into his personal bank account to wire the funds to a title company, and
he used the funds towards the purchase of real property located in Cape Coral,
Florida. Id. Further, the money that Casseus wire transferred was the proceeds of
bank fraud, as Casseus used more than $10,000 in PPP loan funds towards the
purchase of his residence. Id.
On October 20, 2023, at the time of the defendant’s sentencing, the Court
imposed a sentence that was sufficient, but not greater than necessary, after
considering all of the factors set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553.
The Court addressed the defendant and his partner concerning the nature and
circumstances of the offenses. The Court considered that the defendant admitted
that it was his idea to file fraudulent PPP loan applications, and he convinced his
partner to file separate PPP loan applications for which she was being sentenced.
Further, the Court stated that:
it was a lot of money stolen here. He knew what he was doing. He’s a
businessman. He knew after he got into it that he shouldn’t have done
it. And then he did it more than once also. It wasn’t a one-time thing,
some friend told him to do it and he did it and he stopped. He did it
more than once. So that’s not good. He knew it was wrong.
4
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 5 of 8 PageID 478
Doc. 72 at 40-41. At sentencing, the Court advised that the guideline range
was advisory, and the Court imposed the sentence that the Court believed that
the defendant actually deserved. Doc. 72 at 44. After the Court considered
the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need to provide restitution to
the victim of the offense, and all other factors, the Court imposed a term of
supervised release for three years. Doc. 59. The Court imposed a sentence
that promoted respect for the law and afforded an adequate deterrence.
At sentencing the Court ordered the defendant to pay $116,495.45 in
restitution. Doc. 59. The Court advised the defendant that
“[i]f you get it paid off early, there’s a possibility of early termination, if
everything is paid. That’s an incentive to get it paid.” Doc. 72 at 36-37.
While the defendant has made payments towards restitution during the nine
months that he has been on supervised release, he still owes a significant
amount of restitution, approximately $114,000. While he remains on
supervised release, the probation office will continue to monitor that the
defendant makes payments towards restitution.
Furthermore, the Eleventh Circuit has affirmed a district court’s denial of such
a motion for early termination and reasoned as follows regarding a defendant’s
compliant behavior during a defendant’s supervised release:
He is to be congratulated for maintaining steady employment . . . since
his release from prison. Indeed, Defendant notes that he had done so
well on release, he is no longer even required to report to his probation
officer. In other words, it appears that Defendant is operating under a
5
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 6 of 8 PageID 479
non-reporting term of supervision. If accurate, what this means in
practical terms is that the only potential ramification posed by
continuing supervised release of Defendant is the possibility of
revocation, and perhaps a return to prison, should he violate the law
during the remainder of his term. Unless Defendant intends to break
the law again, this incentive to continue his good behavior should not
pose an unreasonable burden and, in fact, it is arguably a helpful nudge
to encourage the Defendant to continue being a law-abiding citizen.
United States v. Boyd, 606 Fed. Appx. 953, 961 (11th Cir. 2015).
In light of the fact that the defendant has not yet completed even one year of
his three-year term of supervised release and he still owes restitution, the early
termination of the defendant’s supervised release is not warranted. Although the
defendant has been compliant thus far while on supervised release, the interest of
justice does not warrant the early termination of supervised release in this case. The
defendant’s compliance with all conditions of supervised release should be expected,
and the defendant should continue to serve his term of supervised release until it
expires on February 17, 2028.
6
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 7 of 8 PageID 480
WHEREFORE, the government respectfully requests that the defendant’s
motion for early termination of supervised release be denied.
Respectfully submitted,
GREGORY W. KEHOE
United States Attorney
By: s/ Yolande G. Viacava
Yolande G. Viacava
Assistant United States Attorney
Florida Bar No. 0110310
2110 First Street, Suite 3-137
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
Telephone: (239) 461-2200
Facsimile: (239) 461-2219
Email: yolande.viacava@usdoj.gov
7
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 95 Filed 11/20/25 Page 8 of 8 PageID 481
U.S. v. DENIS CASSEUS Case No. 2:23-cr-9-KCD-DNF
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 20, 2025, a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document and the notice of electronic filing were sent by United States
Mail to the following non-CM/ECF participant(s):
Denis Casseus
3728 SE 21st Place
Cape Coral, Florida 33904
s/Yolande G. Viacava
Yolande G. Viacava
Assistant United States Attorney
8
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.410213.95.0.pdf
- Size
- 190,492 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0a907e25bac0f9e1c6e35bca60ee8b7ce5aa2859bcd1aed8b0eb436867424fe4
- Original
- PACER (login required)