Defense sentencing memorandum — United States v. David Tyler Hines (S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · No. 1:21-cr-20011-MGC · Doc. 53 · 2021-05-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
 
CASE NO.: 21-20011-CR-COOKE 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
vs. 
 
DAVID TYLER HINES, 
 
 
Defendant. 
                                                              / 
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
David Tyler Hines, through undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this 
Sentencing Memorandum to the Court. In support of this memorandum, Mr. Hines 
states the following: 
On February 10, 2021, Mr. Hines pled guilty to one count of Wire Fraud in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343. (D.E. 38). He is before the Court on May 12, 2021 for 
sentencing on this charge.  
The plea agreement binds both parties to “recommend that the Court impose 
a sentence within the advisory guidelines range produced by application of the 
Sentencing Guidelines.” (D.E. 40). We ask this Court to impose a sentence at the 
bottom of that range, which is more than sufficient to satisfy §3553(a)’s mandates. 
Mr. Hines is before the Court acknowledging the gravity of his actions and 
accepting responsibility. He recognizes the negative life choices that lead him to this 
point, beginning with his addiction to drugs. Mr. Hines has struggled with a serious 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-MGC   Document 53   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2021   Page 1 of 6

drug problem all his life, but he has come to understand that his failure to tackle his 
addiction has caused immense pain and suffering to him and those who love him. Mr. 
Hines has begun the long road to recovery and has continually tested negative for 
narcotics throughout his time on pretrial release. A sentence at the low end of the 
advisory guideline range will achieve the purposes of sentencing while allowing Mr. 
Hines to continue his progress in taking the necessary steps to understand and 
overcome the temptations and addictions that led him to this point. 
Mr. Hines’ Background and Childhood 
David Hines grew up bouncing from family member to family member, never 
achieving stability or a sense of belonging. (See D.E. 53, Psychological Evaluation by 
Dr. Heather Holmes, filed under seal). This resulted in Mr. Hines switching schools, 
constantly moving, and having a very difficult time making friends. David never had 
any real stability. Each “home” he experienced was troubling in its own way: 
observing domestic violence and drug addiction with his mother, watching his father 
use drugs and experience cocaine-induced paranoia, and living as a lonely outsider 
with his uncle. Id. School was not a stabilizing force in David’s life; he began to skip 
class as a freshman in high school. He went from gifted classes in elementary school 
to failing his freshman year in high school. Eventually, he left school in the ninth 
grade. No one seemed to notice. 
 
 
 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-MGC   Document 53   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2021   Page 2 of 6

Mr. Hines’ History of Drug Abuse 
When he was a teenager, David’s father gave him his first rock of crack cocaine. 
Like David, his father’s life was defined by a serious drug addiction. David’s first 
introduction to the drug that would lead him on the road to addiction was the result 
of a tragic attempt at bonding with his largely absent father. (See D.E. 53, 
Psychological Evaluation by Dr. Heather Holmes, filed under seal). From that 
moment on, his life has been controlled by his addiction and withdrawal to various 
narcotics. As a teenager, he would use cocaine to wake up, and take Xanax to sleep. 
Id. In 2017, when paramedics treated him after a multiple-day drug binge, during 
which he believed he would die, Mr. Hines stopped using cocaine. However, he simply 
shifted from cocaine to Adderall. For the last decade, David cannot recall a day he 
was sober prior to being arrested on this case.  
 Mr. Hines’ prior contacts with law enforcement were fueled by his addiction. 
He was under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both during each and every arrest. 
Mr. Hines showed the classic signs of someone who had lost control of his life to 
addiction during these arrests. For example, during one arrest officers saw him 
“screaming and standing in the middle of a road” until officers ask him to leave, and 
then “shouting profanities” until being arrested. Officers noted that Mr. Hines 
smelled of alcohol during the incident. (PSI ¶ 94). 
Similarly, in early 2020 Mr. Hines pled guilty to escape and was sentenced to 
a withhold of adjudication after exiting a police vehicle, falling to the ground, 
becoming unresponsive, and eventually experiencing a minor seizure. (PSI ¶ 81). Mr. 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-MGC   Document 53   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2021   Page 3 of 6

Hines’ memory of these events are hazy.  
Mr. Hines does not seek to use his addiction as an excuse. Rather, he hopes 
that it sheds some light on the circumstances that led to his actions in 2020. He is 
committed to sobriety, and becoming a better husband, father, and son.  
Comparative Cases 
Undersigned counsel has attempted to gather information regarding the 
sentences imposed upon others charged with fraud relating to PPP loans. Many cases 
are still pending sentencing, but the below information details sentences given to 
other defendants who have pled guilty to PPP-related fraud.1 
United States v. Jackson, 20-CR-112-MJN, Southern District of Ohio 
Ms. Jackson pled guilty to two counts of scheme to defraud the United States in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and one count of false statement within the jurisdiction 
of an agency of the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). (D.E. 27). Her 
loss amount was 2.3 million dollars, and her advisory guideline range was 51 to 67 
months. (D.E. 31). She was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. (D.E. 39). 
 
United States v. Hayford, 20-CR-00088-CVE, Northern District of Oklahoma 
Mr. Hayford pled guilty to one count of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 
and one count of false statements to a financial institution in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 
1014. (D.E. 26). His loss amount was 8M2. Mr. Hayford did not enter into a written 
plea agreement. He was sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. (D.E. 38).  
 
United States v. Jaafar, 20-CR-00185-CMH, Eastern District of Virginia 
Mr. Jaafar pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud various financial 
institutions and the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.(D.E. 34). His loss 
amount was 6.6 million dollars. (D.E. 36). His advisory guideline range was 24 to 30 
months imprisonment. (D.E. 62). He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. (D.E. 
67).  
 
 
 
1 Undersigned counsel obtained information from DOJ press releases at https://www.justice.gov/criminal/press-
room. Undersigned recognizes that this list is not dispositive or complete, and is based on public information. 
2 Information from DOJ press release, https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndok/pr/arkansas-project-manager-sentenced-
connection-covid-relief-fraud. Last accessed May 9, 2021. 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-MGC   Document 53   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2021   Page 4 of 6

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Hines respectfully requests the Court impose a 
sentence at the low-end of the advisory guideline range.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully, 
MICHAEL CARUSO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
 
By: 
 /s/ Elizabeth Blair_____________                                     
 
 
 
 
 
  
Assistant Federal Public Defender 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Florida Bar No.: 106280 
 
 
 
 
 
 
150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 1700 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Miami, Florida 33130-1556 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tel: (305) 530-7000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Fax: (305) 536-4559 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E-mail: elizabeth_blair@fd.org 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-MGC   Document 53   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2021   Page 5 of 6

 
 
I HEREBY certify that on May 9, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing 
document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.  I also certify that the foregoing 
document is being served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified 
in the manner specified, either via transmission of Notices of Electronic Filing 
generated by CM/ECF or in some other authorized manner for those counsel or 
parties who are not authorized to receive electronically Notices of Electronic Filing.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 /s/ Elizabeth Blair____________                                 
 
 
 
Case 1:21-cr-20011-MGC   Document 53   Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2021   Page 6 of 6

File and source

File

013_ECF_53_gov.uscourts.flsd.584464.53.0.pdf

Size

104,728 bytes

SHA-256

638061a12c6f1764c65ef0f313a6a4f583654f0c276346caca17016f191ee830

Our copy

013_ECF_53_gov.uscourts.flsd.584464.53.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)