Court filing
Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Harrescia Hopkins
Summary
The government's Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum in United States v. Harrescia Hopkins, No. 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed June 6, 2023 as Doc. 32. It asks for a low-end Guidelines sentence of eight months of imprisonment instead of the six months requested in its initial memorandum (Doc. 23). The government does not object to a two-level downward variance for the anticipated zero-point offender amendment if Hopkins waives a later reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). It now objects to credit for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a), citing unpaid restitution, a $4,000 EIDL loan it says it discovered, and statements Hopkins made before the Merit Systems Protection Board. It states the loss amount should rise to $45,655 and the Guidelines range would be 8-14 months.
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. 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS · Doc. 32 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 1 of 8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA
Criminal Action No.
v.
1:22-CR-284-SEG
H ARRESCIA H OPKINS
Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum
The United States of America, by Ryan K. Buchanan, United States Attorney,
and Garrett L. Bradford, Assistant United States Attorney for the Northern
District of Georgia, files this Supplemental Sentencing Memorandum. For the
reasons stated below, the government requests that the Court impose a low-end
Guidelines sentence of eight months of imprisonment instead of the six months
requested in its initial sentencing memorandum. (Doc. 23).
1. Anticipated Guidelines Amendment for Zero-Point Offenders
Hopkins noted in her supplemental sentencing memorandum that the
preliminary Amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines released in April
contemplate a two-level reduction for certain defendants with no criminal
history points. (Doc. 24; Doc. 24-2 at 1-2). Though those amendments are not yet
in effect, the government does not object to Hopkins receiving a two-level
downward variance at sentencing to receive the anticipated benefit of the
amendment as long as the record is clear that Hopkins waives the right to seek a
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 2 of 8
further sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Section 4C1.1
once the amendment is adopted.
2. Acceptance of Responsibility
The government now objects to Hopkins receiving a two-level downward
adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to § 3E1.1(a) because
multiple aspects of her recent conduct does not “clearly demonstrate[]
acceptance of responsibility for [her] offense.” See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); see also Doc.
19-1 ¶ 15 (“[T]he Government will not be required to recommend acceptance of
responsibility if, after entering this Plea Agreement, the Defendant engages in
conduct inconsistent with accepting responsibility.”).
First, although Hopkins agreed to pay restitution as a part of her plea
agreement, (doc. 19-1 ¶¶ 19, 25), she has not yet made any attempt to make
payments towards restitution nor even engaged in the government’s attempt to
explore future payment plans. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 App. n.1(C) (one factor for
assessing acceptance of responsibility is a defendant’s “voluntary payment of
restitution prior to adjudication of guilt”).
Second, in the course of investigating Hopkins’ assets to enable the
government to collect restitution for her two fraudulent Paycheck Protection
Program loans (an extra exercise and expenditure of resources the government
had to engage in because Hopkins would not negotiate a plan to pay restitution),
the government discovered that Hopkins had taken out a third fraudulent Covid-
relief loan from a separate program. Specifically, on approximately July 23, 2020,
Hopkins applied for and received a $4,000 loan through the U.S. Small Business
2
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 3 of 8
Administration’s Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) program. Such loans
were intended to help small businesses recover from the economic impacts of the
COVID-19 pandemic.1 Hopkins—who didn’t own any business or have any
employees—received the $4,000 of fraudulent EIDL proceeds in her bank account
on July 27, 2020. As a result, Hopkins’ total loss amount should be increased to
$45,655 and restitution to the SBA should be increased by $4,000. (PSR ¶¶ 29, 33).
Hopkins never disclosed this loan to the government in the course of this case or
in discussions about restitution, and those fraudulent gains would not be
recovered if the government had not fortuitously discovered the additional loan
from a separate program at the last minute. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 App. n.1(E) (one
factor for assessing acceptance of responsibility is a defendant’s “voluntary
assistance to authorities in the recovery of the fruits and instrumentalities of the
offense”).
Third, the government has learned that Hopkins is wasting government
resources by appealing her termination from the Department of Justice following
her felony plea in the current case. Specifically, the Bureau of Prisons terminated
Hopkins’ employment after her conviction, and Hopkins is appealing that action
before the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. As a result, the BOP and MSPB
are forced to expend additional resources to finalize Hopkins’ termination from
her law enforcement job while Hopkins is claiming to this Court that she is fully
accepting responsibility for her actions. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 App. n.1(F) (one
1 See https://www.sba.gov/funding-programs/loans/covid-19-relief-
options/eidl (last visited June 5, 2023).
3
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 4 of 8
factor for assessing acceptance of responsibility is a defendant’s “voluntary
resignation from the office or position held during the commission of the
offense”).
Fourth, and most concerning, is that in her appeal to the MSPB Hopkins
claimed that her guilty plea in this case was the product of government coercion
and might be dismissed by this Court. (See Doc. 31 at 4-5.) That serious allegation
triggered a continuance of Hopkins’ sentencing hearing and three subsequent
status conferences. (See Doc. 27; Doc. 28; Doc. 30). Eventually Hopkins denied,
under oath, that anyone had coerced, threatened, forced, or intimidated her into
pleading guilty, and confirmed that she did not want to withdraw her plea. (Doc.
31 at 8-9). Notably, however, Hopkins did not deny that she had made those
claims to the MSPB, dispute the MSPB judge’s summary of her allegations, or
state that the MSPB judge misunderstood what she was alleging. (See id. at 8 (“Is
there anything that you would like to say on the record in this court about any
allegation that your guilty plea in this case was obtained by coercion,
intimidation, or any other unfair tactic? A: No.”)). The logical conclusion is that
Hopkins made knowingly false claims about her guilt to the MSPB and falsely
portrayed herself as a victim, assuming that this Court would not find out what
she said in that separate proceeding, in an effort to continue collecting a
paycheck as a law enforcement officer for as long as possible. That conduct is not
consistent with clearly demonstrating acceptance of responsibility for the offense.
See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a); see also Doc. 19-1 ¶ 15 (“[B]y way of example only, should
the Defendant falsely deny or falsely attempt to minimize the Defendant’s
4
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 5 of 8
involvement in relevant offense conduct, [or] give conflicting statements about
the Defendant’s involvement, . . . the Government will not be required to
recommend acceptance of responsibility.”).
Finally, Hopkins’ argument for sentencing leniency based on attacking her
prosecution as unfair because “similarly situated defendants are not being
prosecuted for this conduct,” demonstrates a lack of remorse and rings hollow.
(Doc. 22 at 2). Hopkins’ implication—that the government should turn a blind
eye to over $40,000 of repeated fraud on an emergency fund by a federal law
enforcement officer and employee of the Department of Justice—shows that she
does not understand or regret the seriousness of her crime by someone in her
position. Further, her attempt to portray herself as a victim is an attempt to
deflect blame rather than admit and atone for the error of her ways.
3. An Appropriate Sentence
With the revisions now recommended by the government (denial of a two-
level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility but granting a two-
level downward variance in contemplation of the upcoming Guidelines
amendments) Hopkins will be facing a Guidelines range of 8-14 months. The
government believes a sentence of incarceration at the low end of that range is
appropriate and not greater than necessary given all the factors in 18 U.S.C.
5
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 6 of 8
§ 3553(a). A sentence of probation is not warranted by the facts of the offense,
including Hopkins’ conduct during the crime and after her plea in this case.2
As explained in the government’s initial sentencing memorandum, Hopkins’
conduct was not an isolated single occurrence by someone who didn’t
understand the possible consequences of her decision; Hopkins was a
Department of Justice employee and law enforcement officer, with a degree in
criminal justice, and interacted daily with other individuals who were living
with the consequences of their crimes. She earned a good salary in a stable job,
and yet she committed flagrant fraud on three separate occasions on two
emergency relief programs with limited funding: in July 2020, August 2020, and
again in January 2021.3 She then spent the money on a new car, landscaping for
her house, a Caribbean cruise and other travel, restaurants, and retail goods. At a
time of historic suffering, Hopkins indulged her greed and stole a share of
emergency funds for her own use.
When caught and held accountable, Hopkins initially seemed remorseful and
ready to accept responsibility for her actions, leading the government to give her
the benefit of the doubt and initially recommend a below-Guidelines sentence of
six months. However, she has since proven those assumptions wrong when she
2 Indeed, a sentence of probation is not statutorily allowed for a Class B
offense, so some term of imprisonment must be ordered. See 18 U.S.C.
§ 3561(a)(1); U.S.S.G. § 5B1.1(b)(1).
3 As explained above, the third instance of fraud on the EIDL program was
only recently discovered and was unknown at the time of the government’s
initial sentencing memorandum.
6
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 7 of 8
failed to pay restitution, failed to disclose a third fraudulent loan, sought to
minimize her conduct by playing a victim of unfair prosecution, sought to
prolong her employment with the Department of Justice through falsehoods, and
falsely claimed in another legal venue that her guilty plea was coerced and may
be dismissed. A serious sentence is necessary to reflect Hopkins’ conduct, her
lack of remorse, and her persistent reluctance to accept responsibility for the true
scope of her conduct.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the government recommends that the Court
sentence Hopkins to a term of imprisonment of eight months.
Respectfully submitted,
R YAN K. B UCHANAN
United States Attorney
/s/G ARRETT L. B RADFORD
Assistant United States Attorney
Georgia Bar No. 074374
Garrett.Bradford@usdoj.gov
600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303
(404) 581-6000 fax (404) 581-6181
7
Case 1:22-cr-00284-SEG-CMS Document 32 Filed 06/06/23 Page 8 of 8
Certificate of Service
The United States Attorney’s Office served this document today by filing it using
the Court’s CM / ECF system, which automatically notifies the parties and counsel
of record.
June 6, 2023
/s/ G ARRETT L. B RADFORD
G ARRETT L. B RADFORD
Assistant United States Attorney
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.306194.32.0.pdf
- Size
- 97,142 bytes
- SHA-256
- 554bdd07a0b065a2f2914d5e2f47032f17ecbd9017d94fc1ccdd649ff6a0886d
- Original
- PACER (login required)