Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Christopher Grant (S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00113 · Doc. 19 · 2024-11-07 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
v. 
Criminal Action No. 2:24-cr-00113 
 
CHRISTOPHER GRANT 
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT CHRISTOPHER GRANT  
AND MOTION FOR DOWNWARD VARIANCE OR DEPARTURE 
 
 
Now comes the defendant, Christopher Grant, by his undersigned counsel and files this 
sentencing memorandum for consideration by the Court in sentencing the defendant.  
I. 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors for Consideration 
With a criminal history category of II and a total offense level of eight, the advisory 
guideline imprisonment range set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) is a term 
of four months to ten months with Zone B sentencing options. PSR ¶ 56. Mr. Grant respectfully 
requests the Court consider a variance or downward departure, moving Mr. Grant to Zone A of the 
guidelines and impose a sentence of probation and relies upon the following 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) 
factors in support of a non-custodial sentence.  
 
 
A. 
Character and History of the Defendant 
 
Christopher Grant is 41 years old and has been a resident of West Virginia for nearly his 
entire life. Mr. Grant enlisted with the United States Army in 2002 but injured his knee while 
attending basic training in Fort Benning, Georgia. Due to this injury, Mr. Grant was discharged 
from the military with a general discharge.  Since that time, Mr. Grant has continuously been 
employed full-time, almost exclusively working in the car sales industry. Mr. Grant is currently 
employed as the sales manager at Yes Chevrolet in Hurricane, West Virginia. A letter from the 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 49

2 
 
owner, Keith Powell, is provided along with this memorandum stating that Mr. Grant is an 
excellent manager and asset, and he hopes Mr. Grant can continue to work there for years to come. 
See Letter Attached as Exhibit A. Mr. Powell further states that Mr. Grant can continue to work at 
Yes Chevrolet should he be given an alternative sentence by this Court. Id. Mr. Grant’s only 
previous criminal history is for driving under the influence. Mr. Grant has been on pre-trial release 
since August 5, 2024. Since that time he has abstained from the use of any alcohol and has excelled 
while on supervision.  
Other than the current criminal case, Mr. Grant lives a fairly normal life. He goes to work 
five days a week and works from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Mr. Grant almost always ends up staying late to 
work with customers or to help handle closing a deal, paperwork, etc., which means he is often 
working well over fifty hours a week. When Mr. Grant is not working, he spends the rest of his 
time at home or helping his family. Mr. Grant has the benefit of a very supportive family who he 
has a close relationship with. Mr. Grant’s sister, Nichole Grant, lives in town. Mr. Grant is very 
close with Nichole Grant and she wrote a letter in support of Mr. Grant that is attached to this 
memorandum as Exhibit B. Ms. See Letter Attached as Exhibit B. Ms. Grant explains that she is a 
single mother of two children, and that Christopher Grant has always gone above and beyond to 
help her with her children and support her when she needs it. Nichole Grant’s oldest son was born 
prematurely at twenty-six weeks and has significant special needs as a result. Nichole had to take 
time off from work when her son was born prematurely to care for him. That is when Christopher 
Grant paid for shirts and started a fundraiser to help pay for medical bills and to support his sister 
while she was caring for her child. Mr. Grant also steps in whenever Nichole Grant needs help 
with her children, and he will end up watching her four-year-old daughter for days at a time when 
her older son is hospitalized.   
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 2 of 11 PageID #: 50

3 
 
Nichole also sets forth for the Court that Mr. Grant’s generosity has not stopped with her 
family. He has helped fund the Winfield Middle School dance when they lacked resources, secured 
donations for the Mountain State Autistic baseball team, and supported the Saint Albans Athletic 
programs. Mr. Grant also helped a friend of his by providing him with a place to stay during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, even when Mr. Grant was hurting financially himself.  
All of the letters this Court received on behalf of Mr. Grant portray the same qualities and 
character attributes that Mr. Grant is known for. See Letters Attached as Exhibits C, D, E, F. Ms. 
Scarcella describes Mr. Grant as someone who is always there to support his friends and others in 
times of need, that he is hardworking and dedicated, and someone that she knows to be of great 
integrity and moral fiber. See letter C. Ms. Jones describes Mr. Grant as someone who has a strong 
sense of integrity, a hard worker, and devoted to his family, who he is a core resource for. Ms. 
Jones believes that Mr. Grant can learn from this experience and will be able to move forward in 
a positive direction. See Exhibit D. Ms. Justice describes Mr. Grant the same way as everyone else, 
someone who is selfless and generous, a hard worker, and always positively impacting those 
around him. See Exhibit E.  
Mr. Grant has accepted full responsibility for his actions in this matter. As expressed in the 
letters attached, Mr. Grant’s conduct in this matter was an anomaly and goes against what Mr. 
Grant believes in. This conduct was a lapse in judgment and is not indicative of the character that 
Mr. Grant has established in this community throughout the entirety of his life. Mr. Grant 
understands he made a serious mistake, has accepted responsibility prior to even being charged in 
this matter, and is dedicated to ensuring all of the funds are paid back.  
 
B. 
Nature of the Offense 
 
 Prior to COVID-19, Mr. Grant was employed by Charleston Suzuki in Saint Albans. On 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 3 of 11 PageID #: 51

4 
 
March 24, 2020, Mr. Grant was laid off from employment due to the negative effects on business 
during the Covid-19 pandemic. On March 25, 2020, Mr. Grant applied for unemployment 
compensation benefits which were approved. On or about April 24, 2020, Mr. Grant did return to 
work. However, it is important to note that while Mr. Grant was being paid his salary, a significant 
part of his earnings came from the commissions he earned on selling cars. During this time of the 
pandemic, people were not purchasing vehicles like they were prior to the pandemic due to the 
unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. During this time, Governor Justice issued a 
Stay at Home Order that was effective March 24, 2020. See Governor Issues Stay-at-Home Order 
(wv.gov)(https://dhhr.wv.gov/COVID-19/Pages/Governor-Issues-Stay-at-Home-Order.aspx). 
This order was in effect until it was lifted on May 4, 2020 and Governor Justice issued a new order 
called the “Safer at Home” Order. See Coronavirus in West Virginia: ‘Stay-at-Home’ order to be 
replaced by ‘Safer-at-Home’ order next week | WOWK 13 News (wowktv.com)( 
https://www.wowktv.com/news/west-virginia/coronavirus-in-west-virginia-stay-at-home-order-
to-be-replaced-by-safer-at-home-order-next-week/). Both of these Orders recommended that 
citizens stay at home with the exception of completing essential tasks and activities. Citizens of 
West Virginia were discouraged from going out and performing activities such as purchasing a car 
from a car dealership, as this was not an essential activity or service. As explained above, even 
though Mr. Grant did return to work, he was directly impacted financially by the COVID-19 
pandemic and was unable to sell vehicles like he had previously done and relied upon.  
 
During this hardship, Mr. Grant made a mistake and continued to apply for unemployment 
compensation and also applied for a PPP loan for an amount greater than he would have been 
entitled to.  Mr. Grant is ashamed of his conduct and intends to fully pay back the money that was 
taken.  
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 4 of 11 PageID #: 52

5 
 
C. 
The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with 
similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.  
 
Of the thirteen cases in this district the undersigned is aware that deal with financial crimes 
during and related to the COVID-19 pandemic where the defendant has been sentenced, the 
undersigned is only aware of one defendant who received a term of imprisonment. All of the other 
defendants who have been sentenced for similar conduct received varying terms of probation.  
Rhonda and Robert Notgrass unlawfully obtained a combined $26,917 of unemployment 
benefits that they were not entitled to. Rhonda Notgrass was sentenced to five years of probation 
by Judge Berger. See United States v. Rhonda Notgrass, 2:23-cr-00016 (S.D. W.Va. May 18, 
2023)(Berger).1 Robert Notgrass similarly received a sentenced of five years of probation. See 
United States v. Robert Notgrass, 2:23-cr-00017 (S.D. W.Va. May 18, 2023)(Berger).2 The 
Notgrass’ case was similar to Mr. Grants in that they received unemployment benefits that they 
were not entitled to.  
Other defendants were responsible for greater amounts of loss and were given sentences of 
probation. Alexis Ransom plead guilty to wire fraud for PPP loans that she received. Ms. Ransom 
stipulated that she received at least $42,250.00 through her scheme. Ms. Ransom was sentenced 
to five years of probation by Judge Faber. See United States v. Alexis Ransom, 2:22-cr-00122 (S.D. 
W.Va. January 10, 2023)(Faber).3 Malik Breckenridge fraudulently obtained $41,666 in PPP loans 
and received five years of probation (with eight months home confinement).4 See United States v. 
Malik Breckenridge, Case No. 2:22-cr-00084 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 17, 2022) (Berger). 
Calvin Butler had a loss amount of $16,040.00 and was sentenced before Judge Goodwin 
 
1 Rhonda Notgrass’s advisory guideline range was 0 to 6 months and in Zone A. 
2 Robert Notgrass’s advisory guideline range was 0 to 6 months and in Zone A. However, it should be noted that Mr. 
Notgrass had a prior felony for stealing jewelry, but this only added one criminal history point. 
3 Ransom’s advisory guideline range was 8 to 14 months and in Zone B.  
4 Breckenridge’s advisory guideline range was 8 to 14 months in Zone B. 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 5 of 11 PageID #: 53

6 
 
to five years of probation with the first six months to be served on home detention. See United 
States v. Calvin Butler, 2:22-cr-0016 (S.D. W.Va. May 18, 2023) (Goodwin).5 Tiffany Bowlin was 
also sentenced to five years of probation, including four months of home confinement, for her PPP 
loan loss of $20,833. See United States v. Tiffany Bowlin, 2:22-cr-00205 (S.D. W.Va. May 10, 
2023).6 (Copenhaver). Aalik Wilsher was sentenced to three years of probation and had a 
restitution amount of $20,459.33. See United States v. Aalik Wilsher, 2:23-cr-00051 (S.D. W.Va. 
August 9, 2023) (Goodwin). Daniel Satow had a loss amount of $16,000 and his advisory guideline 
range was four to ten months. See United States v. Daniel Satow, 2:23-cr-00056 (S.D. W.Va. 
August 10, 2023) (Johnston). Mr. Satow was sentenced to five years of probation. Tamir Pratt had 
a loss amount of $20,832 and was sentenced to two years of probation. See United States v. Tamir 
Pratt, 2:23-cr-00038 (S.D. W.Va. September 28, 2023) (Goodwin). Imeesha Bradley was 
sentenced to five years of probation and had a loss amount of $18,703. See United States v. Imeesha 
Bradley, 2:23-cr-00112 (S.D. W.Va. January 9, 2024) (Faber).7 Sean Boyd was sentenced to five 
years of probation and had a loss amount of $23,817.79. See United States v. Sean Boyd, 2:23-cr-
00123 (S.D. W.Va. February 21, 2024) (Copenhaver).8 
Finally, Mr. Grant’s case is distinguishable from the only defendant the undersigned is 
aware of who has received a term of imprisonment for a COVID-19 related crime. Lydia Spencer 
pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud, but she was also facing a felony charge for felon 
in possession of a firearm at the same time. Ms. Spencer’s advisory guideline range was six to 
twelve months and she was sentenced to four months imprisonment. There are other distinguishing 
factors between Spencer’s case and Mr. Grant’s case.  
 
5 Butler’s advisory guideline range was 6 to 12 months in Zone B. 
6 Bowlin’s advisory guideline range was 4 to 10 months in Zone B. 
7 Bradley’s advisory guideline range was 0-6 months in Zone A. 
8 Boyd’s advisory guideline range was 0-6 months and in Zone A.  
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 6 of 11 PageID #: 54

7 
 
Many of the defendants listed above had similar (and some even worse) guideline ranges 
and were sentenced to a term of probation. Mr. Grant respectfully requests to be sentenced to a 
term of probation, which would be consistent with other similarly situated defendants in this 
district. In addition, in all of these cases except one - United States v. Malik Breckenridge, Case 
No. 2:22-cr-00084 – the Court determined that the defendants were unable to pay post-judgment 
interest and waived interest on the restitution amount pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3)(A). The 
sentencing court has discretion “to waive or limit the payment of interest upon a finding that the 
defendant is unable to pay interest.” United States v. Coleman, 319 F. App’x 228, 231 (4th Cir. 
2009)(per curiam).9  Mr. Grant is currently indigent and owes a large amount of debt, as set forth 
in the PSR, and respectfully asks for the Court to make a similar finding in his case.  
D. 
Kinds of Sentences and Ranges Established by the Guidelines and Need for 
the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote Respect for the 
Law, and Provide Just Punishment. 
 
 
Mr. Grant has a total offense level of 8 and is in Criminal History Category II, yielding an 
advisory guideline sentencing of four to ten months. The applicable guideline range is in Zone B 
of the Sentencing Table and a term of probation falls within the sentencing options provided by 
Zone B. In the present case there is no mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment required. 
Mr. Grant has a stable job and a demonstrated history of employment. The United States Supreme 
Court has previously acknowledged that probation is a serious sentence. See Gall v. United States, 
552 U.S. 38,48 (2007) (“Offenders on probation are nonetheless subject to several standard 
conditions that substantially restrict their liberty.”); United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119 
(2001) (“Inherent in the very nature of probation is that probationers do not enjoy the absolute 
 
9 If the sentencing court makes such a finding, the statute provides three options: “(A) waive the requirement for 
interest; (B) limit the total of interest payable to a specific dollar amount; or (C) limit the length of the period during 
which interest accrues.” 18 § 3612(f)(3). 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 7 of 11 PageID #: 55

8 
 
liberty to which every citizen is entitled.” (quoting Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 
(1987))). Mr. Grant will now be saddled with a felony for the rest of his life. An alternative 
sentence would permit Mr. Grant to continue working and be self-supporting rather than a burden 
on taxpayers. Saddling Mr. Grant with a term of imprisonment in this case would not be beneficial 
for him or society as a whole. A term of imprisonment would only keep Mr. Grant from continuing 
to work and pay towards the restitution that is owed. A term of probation would also sufficiently 
reflect the seriousness of Mr. Grant’s crime, constitute just punishment, protect public safety, and 
serve as an effective deterrent. See Gall, 552 U.S. 38.  
 
II. 
Objections to the Presentence Report 
 
Mr. Grant only has one outstanding objection to the PSR. However, Mr. Grant agrees with 
the probation officer’s response that the sentencing court has the ability to determine whether or 
not to apply interest. As set forth above, Mr. Grant is asking this Court to waive the requirement 
for interest in this matter. Mr. Grant’s objection to the language used was to preserve his request 
that the Court waive the interest requirement.    
 
III. 
Motion for Downward Departure or Variance 
 
Mr. Grant’s criminal history category II disproportionately exposes him to Zone B of the 
Sentencing Table as opposed to Zone A. United States Sentencing Guidelines section 4A1.3 
provides that a downward departure may be warranted “if reliable information indicates that the 
defendant’s criminal history category substantially over-represents the seriousness of the 
defendant’s criminal history or the likelihood that the defendant will commit other crimes, a 
downward departure may be warranted.” USSG § 4A1.3(b)(1). Such a departure may be warranted 
“if, for example, the defendant had two minor misdemeanor convictions close to ten years prior to 
the instant offense and no other evidence of prior criminal behavior in the intervening period.” 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 8 of 11 PageID #: 56

9 
 
USSG § 4A1.3, comment. (n.3). In Mr. Grant’s case, he has two misdemeanor driving offenses for 
driving under the influence. Mr. Grant’s first misdemeanor conviction is close to ten years prior to 
the offense conduct in this case and is now over twelve years old. If Mr. Grant was not given a 
criminal history point for this driving offense, he would be in criminal history category I. This 
would change Mr. Grants advisory guideline range to zero to six months and place him in Zone A 
of the sentencing table. This would more accurately reflect Mr. Grant’s criminal history and the 
likelihood of him reoffending.  
Even if this Court is not persuaded to grant a downward departure, Mr. Grant respectfully 
requests a downward variance that would place him in Zone A of the sentencing table. Mr. Grant’s 
case involves mitigating factors and circumstances as outlined throughout this Memorandum and 
Mr. Grant respectfully requests this Court to consider a downward variance from the advisory 
guideline range.  Such a sentence would enjoy a presumption of reasonableness. “Any sentence 
that is within or below a properly calculated Guidelines range is presumptively [substantively] 
reasonable. Such a presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence is unreasonable 
when measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 295, 
306 (4th Cir. 2014). In this case, a downward variance would be sufficient, reasonable, and fair in 
light of the unique circumstances surrounding this case and the mitigating circumstances present. 
Moreover, such a sentence would fully comply with the statutory purposes of 18 U.S.C. 
§3553(a)(2) and has legal support in the cases cited for the Court.   
 
IV. 
Request for Sentencing 
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Grant respectfully requests a downward variance or departure and a 
sentence of probation or any alternative sentence that this Court deems sufficient to achieve the 
statutory sentencing purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 9 of 11 PageID #: 57

10 
 
 
V. 
Time for Sentencing Hearing 
The defendant does not currently intend to call any witnesses and believes sentencing can 
likely be concluded in one hour.  
 
VI. 
Conclusion 
 
For all the reasons set forth above, the defendant respectfully requests the Court to sentence 
Mr. Grant to a term of probation or any alternative sentence that this Court deems sufficient to 
achieve the statutory sentencing purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
CHRISTOPHER GRANT, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Counsel, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Paul E. Stroebel                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul E. Stroebel, Esquire (WV BAR 13269) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stroebel & Stroebel, P.L.L.C. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post Office Box 2582 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Charleston, West Virginia  25329-2582 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 10 of 11 PageID #: 58

11 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
v. 
Criminal Action No. 2:24-cr-00113 
 
CHRISTOPHER GRANT 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I, PAUL E. STROEBEL, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 
“Defendant Christopher Grant’s Sentencing Memorandum” has been served upon all counsel 
of record this 7th day November, 2024, to the following: 
 
Andrew Tessman, Esquire 
Assistant United States Attorney 
         300 Virginia Street E.; Suite 4000 
Charleston, WV  25301 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Paul E. Stroebel                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul E. Stroebel, Esquire 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 2:24-cr-00113     Document 19     Filed 11/07/24     Page 11 of 11 PageID #: 59

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.239638.19.0.pdf

Size

305,522 bytes

SHA-256

dc8d459c0fdcb4af31b59a05370344ec79148b4a0501c417fb96d35ff7f6cd31

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.239638.19.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)