Court filing

United States' Response in Opposition to Second Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release — United States v. Denis Casseus

No. 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF · Doc. 98 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 1 of 9 PageID 488

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO. 2:23-cr-9-KCD-DNF

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. 97), 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 plea 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 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 2 of 9 PageID 489

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 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 3 of 9 PageID 490

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. Maisano further

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 that

time.

6. On January 14, 2026, the Court denied the defendant’s motion for early

termination of his supervised release. Doc. 96. The Court determined that the

defendant had not met the statutory time requirement and that the interests of justice

did not support his early termination from supervised release. Id. Further, the Court

reasoned that the defendant still owed approximately $114,000 in restitution;

therefore, terminating supervision while “the vast majority” of the restitution

“remains unpaid would undermine the specific deterrence and restitution goals of the

original sentence.” Id.

7. On February 25, 2026, the defendant filed a Motion for Early

Termination of Supervised Release. Doc. 97.

8. On March 10, 2026, the government consulted with Myekia Sharp, a

United States Probation Officer Assistant, concerning the defendant’s motion for

early termination of supervised release. Sharp advised that the defendant “still owes

a significant amount of restitution and has not completed his yearly financial

investigation.” Sharp advised that “Probation will defer to the court on this matter.”

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

Pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3583(e):
3
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 4 of 9 PageID 491

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

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

4
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 5 of 9 PageID 492

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.

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.

5
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 6 of 9 PageID 493

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. In his motion, the

defendant claims that he “had completed every condition asked of [him] and

has gone far beyond the requirements of [his] supervision.” Doc. 97 at 2.

Making restitution payments is a condition of the defendant’s supervised

release that was imposed at his sentencing. Doc. 59 at 3, 6. That condition

has not been completed. While the defendant has made payments towards

restitution during the one year that he has been on supervised release, he still

owes a significant amount of restitution, approximately $114,000. The

defendant has merely been making his minimum $100 monthly payments.

While he remains on supervised release, the probation office will continue to

monitor that the defendant makes payments towards restitution. The

Probation Office will ensure that the defendant is working full time at a lawful

type of employment. Id. at 4. Further, the probation office will have access to

any requested financial information and will monitor that the defendant does

not incur new credit charges, open additional lines of credit, or make an

obligation for any major purchases without approval of the Probation Officer.

Id. at 5.

6
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 7 of 9 PageID 494

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
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 only just completed 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.

7
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 8 of 9 PageID 495

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

8
Case 2:23-cr-00009-KCD-DNF Document 98 Filed 03/12/26 Page 9 of 9 PageID 496

U.S. v. DENIS CASSEUS Case No. 2:23-cr-9-KCD-DNF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 12, 2026, 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

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flmd.410213.98.0.pdf
Size: 198,317 bytes
SHA-256: 9f0ff4f73b3267022ed052b98766e52f31da92d1965963fb648b4da4bb056232
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flmd.410213.98.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)