The Government's Reply to Defendant's Restitution Request — United States v. Antonio D. Hosey

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00396-LMM · Doc. 28 · 2022-12-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
v. 
ANTONIO HOSEY 
 
Criminal Action No. 
1:20-CR-396-LMM 
 
The Government’s Reply to Defendant’s Restitution Request 
The United States of America, by Ryan K. Buchanan, United States Attorney, 
and Diane C. Schulman, Special Assistant United States Attorney for the 
Northern District of Georgia, files this reply to Defendant’s restitution request. 
On or about November 19, 2020, Defendant was charged in a criminal 
information with one count conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money 
laundering in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. § 371. (Doc 1).  These charges arose from 
Defendant’s role in a PPP fraud scheme that defrauded two banks out of a 
combined $3,000,000. 
The scheme involved 9 business owners who obtained $300,000 PPP loans by 
submitting applications that contained fraudulent information and attachments.  
Each business owner submitted the loan documents with the help of Rodericque 
Thompson, the ringleader of the scheme.  Once the business owners obtained the 
loan, they were required to pay Thompson approximately 50 percent of the loan.   
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 1 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
2 
 
Defendant was involved in the scheme in several crucial ways.  He knew 
Thompson, from years earlier when Thompson ran a questionable “credit repair” 
service.  When Thompson got involved in the PPP fraud scheme, he needed to 
find small business owners who had business bank accounts to participate in the 
scheme.  He reached out to Defendant because of their prior relationship.  
Because Defendant did not have a business bank account, he referred Timothy 
Williams to Thompson.  Thompson paid Defendant a $10,000 referral fee.  
Williams was able to get a $300,000 PPP loan and he referred 3 other business 
owners. Those business owners obtained 4 PPP loans, each for $300,000. 
Thompson also asked Defendant to help him launder the funds.  In order to 
receive 50 percent of each loan, Thompson needed individuals who could cash 
checks from the business owners.  He asked Defendant to recruit check cashers.  
Defendant recruited approximately 12 individuals to cash checks.  He brought 
the check cashers to the bank to cash the checks.  Typically, each check was for 
$8,333.33.  Defendant let the check cashers keep $500 from each check and he 
collected the remainder of the cash.   
Defendant told the Government that, as payment for his part in the scheme, 
Thompson told him to keep 4 checks, each for $8,333,33, or a total of $33,333.32.  
According to Thompson, Hosey received $30,000 for cashing checks, another 
$10,000 as a referral fee for referring Williams, and at some point he told 
Defendant to increase the amount kept from each check from $500 to $1,000 
which was to be split between Defendant and the individual check casher.  
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 2 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
3 
 
On November 19, 2020, Defendant pleaded guilty to the criminal information 
pursuant to a negotiated plea.  (Doc. 8).  A total of 11 defendants were charged in 
connection with this scheme, and all but one entered a guilty plea. 
At Defendant’s November 16, 2022 sentencing hearing, Defendant was found 
to be responsible for a loss to the victim banks of $463.777.79 which represented 
the value of the money laundered in the form of checks Defendant and his crew 
of check cashers cashed.  The Court sentenced Defendant to serve a year in a day 
in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.  (Doc. 24).  When the Court was about to 
order Defendant to pay the same amount in restitution, Defense counsel, for the 
first time, argued that the Court should order Defendant to pay restitution in the 
amount of $33,332.00, the amount Defendant claims to have earned from the 
scheme.1  The Court opted not to rule on the restitution amount until the parties 
briefed the issue.   
II. Argument 
Defendant was convicted to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money 
laundering pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 371.  (Doc. 1).  Pursuant to the Mandatory 
Restitution for Victims Act (MVRA), the Court is required to order restitution to 
each victim in the full amount of each victim’s losses as determined by the court 
and without consideration of the defendant’s economic circumstances.  See 18 
 
1 Defendant did not raise the issue of restitution in either his objections to the 
PSR or in his sentencing. 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 3 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
4 
 
U.S.C. § 3664(f)(1)(A); United States v. Ramedo, 682 F. App’x 751, 758 (11th Cir. 
2017).  An order of restitution is not discretionary.  See United States v. Scott, 335 
F. App’x 891, 994 (11th Cir. 2009).  District courts have discretion to apportion 
restitution jointly and severally among co-defendants to reflect each defendant’s 
contribution to the victim’s loss.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h).  In this case, consistent 
with the statute, the Government asks that Defendant be ordered to pay 
$463,779.79 to be jointly and severally owed and apportioned among multiple 
defendants.  See Gov’t Ex. 1 (restitution breakdown). 
This Court has sentenced 9 of 10 defendants all involved in the same scheme.2  
At each sentencing, the Court ordered restitution that was equivalent to the loss 
suffered by the victim bank.  Additionally, the Court apportioned restitution 
among different defendants where appropriate.  For example, Thompson was 
ordered to pay restitution of $2,723,259 jointly and severally with all of the 
business owners. Williams was ordered to pay restitution of $869,427.54. This 
amount considered the loan he received and loans that Wright, Baisden and 
Smith received because he referred them to Thompson.  The restitution order 
reflected the actual loss the banks sustained from the fraudulent loans.   
 
2 In addition to Defendant, the following Defendants have been sentenced: 
Kenneth Wright (1:20-CR-285-LMM), Thomas Wilson (1:21-CR-00011-LMM), 
Micah Baisden (1:21-CR-00011-LMM), Keith Maloney (1:21-CR-00011-LMM), 
Mark Stewart (1:20-CR-319-LMM), Stanley Dorceus (1:20-CR-320-LMM), 
Timothy Williams (1:20-CR-339-LMM), and Rodericque Thompson (1:21-CR-
00011-LMM). 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 4 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
5 
 
The Government seeks to treat Defendant identically to how the other 
defendants in this case have been treated.  The Government did not seek to hold 
Defendant responsible for the entire amount of the loss the victim banks 
sustained from the fraudulent loans the business owners who Defendant cashed 
checks for obtained, although that would have been permitted by the statute.  See 
Scott, 335 F. App’x at 894.  Rather, the Government asks the Court to apportion 
Defendant’s restitution to only the amount of the loss that he directly 
contributed.   
Defense counsel argues that the Court should “apportion” Defendant’s 
restitution and then misinterprets “apportion” to mean limit Defendant’s 
restitution to the amount he profited from the scheme.  (Doc. 27, pp. 2-3).  
Defense counsel cites no case law to support this definition of “apportion” or 
approach to restitution.  Moreover, it is entirely inconsistent with the statute 
which defines restitution as the victim’s loss.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3663(f)(1)(A). 
Her reasoning is also factually flawed. Specifically, Defense counsel claims 
that if Defendant was “ordered to pay $463,777.79 in restitution….it would be 
more than double what any of the business owners were required to pay.”  (Doc. 
27, p. 3).  As an initial matter, it should not matter whether Defendant is required 
to pay more than other business owners.  The question is how much did he 
contribute to the victims’ loss.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3664(h).  Moreover, Defense 
counsel’s assertion is incorrect.  Williams, who obtained a $300,000 PPP loan for 
his business, was ordered to pay $869,427.54 in restitution which is considerably 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 5 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
6 
 
more than amount the Government seeks to hold Defendant responsible.  Many 
of the business owners were ordered to pay $300,000 in restitution which is more 
than half of the restitution the Government seeks here.  Thus, Defendant will not 
be ordered to pay “more than double” than the business owners.  And it 
represents the loss that defendant contributed to the victim banks and not a 
penny more.   
She also incorrectly claims that the business owners made “4.5 more money 
off the scheme” than Defendant.  (Doc. 27, p. 3).  But this is not true either.  
Defense counsel has no idea how much the business owners profited from this 
scheme.  While the Government has no way of knowing exactly how much each 
business owner received, the evidence shows that one business owner received 
nothing from the loan because the bank froze the account before he accessed the 
funds.   In most of these cases, either the bank froze the business owner’s account 
or the Government seized funds which prevented the business owners from 
receiving much money from the scheme.  Yet, they were all required to pay 
restitution in the full amount of the loss to the victim bank. 
Finally, Defense counsel claims that Defendant’s economic circumstances 
require the Court to limit his restitution to $33,333.33.  (Doc. 27, p. 4).  She argues 
that the PSR lists Defendant’s net worth as $14,378.21.  Defendant’s net worth is 
not substantially different from any of the business owners in this case.  Like 
Defendant, all of the business owners are struggling to get by.  Making multiple 
defendants jointly and severally liable for restitution means that each defendant 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 6 of 8

600 U.S. Courthouse, 75 Ted Turner Drive S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 581-6000   fax (404) 581-6181 
7 
 
will benefit if one defendant’s financial condition improves.  Thus, a sense of 
fairness dictates apportioning the restitution in the manner that the Government 
has requested so that the defendants are equally responsible for the loss they 
caused. 
Conclusion 
The Government asks that Defendant be order to pay $463,777.70 in 
restitution to be jointly and severally liable with co-defendants and apportioned 
as indicated by the Government. 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
RYAN K. BUCHANAN 
United States Attorney 
/s/DIANE C. SCHULMAN 
Special Assistant United States 
Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 497764 
Diane.schulman@usdoj.gov 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 7 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. 
Caitlyn Wade 
December 12, 2022 
 
/s/ DIANE C. SCHULMAN  
 
DIANE C. SCHULMAN 
 
Special Assistant United States 
Attorney 
 
 
Case 1:20-cr-00396-LMM     Document 28     Filed 12/13/22     Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.282638.28.0.pdf

Size

113,457 bytes

SHA-256

f8b58cece90a63896dc6e6c7c18b310a10da120d70710b8121f494099b377546

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.282638.28.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)