Government’s Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Lelievre (Dkt. 21, D. Mass.)

Summary

The government's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Jesse Lelievre, No. 24-cr-10217-DJC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed January 3, 2025 as Document 21 by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kriss Basil. It states that Lelievre owns Paramount Plumbing & Heating LLC and received roughly $1,222,000 through the SBA's Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, promising under oath to use it for business purposes, but misappropriated $179,090 for personal use, including $83,000 for a diamond ring and $4,800 for HVAC services at his home. With a range of 8 to 14 months as a zero-point offender, it asks for 8 months of home confinement, 24 months of supervised release and restitution of $179,090.

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

Record facts

Full text

Case 1:24-cr-10217-DJC         Document 21        Filed 01/03/25      Page 1 of 5




                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                              DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

        v.                                         No. 24-cr-10217-DJC

 JESSE LELIEVRE

           Defendant


                       GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

       Defendant Jesse Lelievre owns and operates Paramount Plumbing & Heating LLC

(“Paramount Plumbing & Heating”), a Massachusetts company that provided plumbing, heating,

and related services. After the COVID-19 pandemic began, Mr. Lelievre applied for and received

roughly $1,222,000 from the U.S Small Business Administration (“SBA”), through its Economic

Injury Disaster Loan (“EIDL”) program. As a condition of that loan, Mr. Lelievre promised, under

oath, to use the funds solely for business purposes. But Mr. Lelievre then decided to spend a

portion of those funds for personal use.

       In total, Mr. Lelievre misappropriated $179,090 as follows:

       •        $83,000 for a diamond ring;

       •        $4,800 for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) services at Mr.
                Lelievre’s home;

       •        $13,000 for landscaping services at Mr. Lelievre’s home;

       •        $7,000 for additional landscaping services at Mr. Lelievre’s home;

       •        $30,000 for remodeling services at Mr. Lelievre’s home; and

       •        $41,290 for additional remodeling services at Mr. Lelievre’s home.

       On April 30, 2024, the FBI approached Mr. Lelievre, who agreed to an interview. Mr.

Lelievre originally said he only used the EIDL funds for business reasons, but over the course of the

          Case 1:24-cr-10217-DJC          Document 21       Filed 01/03/25     Page 2 of 5




interview, he eventually admitted to personal spending, in violation of the SBA loan agreement.

Thereafter, Mr. Lelievre thereafter retained counsel and agreed to plead guilty to Theft of

Government Property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641.

                           APPLICABLE SENTENCING GUIDELINES

         As set forth in the Plea Agreement (ECF 2), the parties agree that Mr. Lelievre’s total

Offense Level is 11, calculated as follows:

         •       Defendant’s base offense level is 6, because the offense of conviction is referenced
                 to USSG § 2B1.1 and has a statutory maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years
                 (USSG § 2B1.1(a)(2));

         •       Defendant’s offense level is increased by 10, because the loss from the offense was
                 more than $150,000 but not more than $250,000 (USSG § 2B1.1(b)(1)(F));

         •       Defendant’s offense level is decreased by 3, because Defendant has accepted
                 responsibility for Defendant’s crime (USSG § 3E1.1); and

         •       Defendant’s offense level is decreased by 2, because Defendant has no criminal
                 history points and otherwise qualifies as a zero-point offender (USSG § 4C1.1).

The resulting sentencing range is between 8 and 14 months (Zone B).

                                    SENTENCING ARGUMENT

         For the reasons stated below, the Court should sentence the defendant to 8 months of home

confinement and 24 months of supervised release and should order restitution of $179,090.1

         A.      Seriousness of the Offense and General Deterrence

         In recommending a period of confinement, the government’s focus is for Mr. Lelievre’s

sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offense and provide for general deterrence. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3553(a)(2)(A)-(B).      Fraud during the Covid-19 pandemic was unfortunately widespread,

resulting in a loss of confidence in such government programs. See, e.g., U.S. Government


1
    The defendant has already paid this amount to the clerk’s office.



                                                   2

        Case 1:24-cr-10217-DJC          Document 21         Filed 01/03/25      Page 3 of 5




Accountability Office, How Prevalent is Fraud in Federal Programs? We Take a Look—Focusing

on Unemployment Insurance Oversight (January 23, 2023). The taxpayers who fund those

programs should know that individuals who took advantage of the system are being required to

repay the money and are being punished. Additionally, these sorts of financial crimes are “prime

candidates for general deterrence.” United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006)

(“Because economic and fraud-based crimes are ‘more rational, cool, and calculated than sudden

crimes of passion or opportunity’ these crimes are ‘prime candidates for general deterrence.’”)

(quoting Stephanos Bibas, White–Collar Plea Bargaining and Sentencing After Booker, 47 Wm.

& Mary L.Rev. 721, 724 (2005)); see also United States v. Prosperi, 686 F.3d 32, 47 (1st Cir.

2012) (“We have previously emphasized the importance of general deterrence in white-collar

crime.”). The Court’s sentence should therefore provide some deterrent to others who may

consider defrauding government programs.

       B.      History and Characteristics of the Defendant

       The government recommends a period of confinement at the low end of the applicable

range, including the possibility of an alternative form of confinement based on the history and

characteristics of the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1). Mr. Lelievre’s crimes did not involve

the use of stolen identities, which is a distinguishing factor from a substantial portion of the fraud

committed against Covid-19 pandemic relief programs. Instead, Mr. Lelievre misappropriated less

than 20% of an otherwise valid pandemic relief loan for personal use.

       Further, Mr. Lelievre has a Criminal History Category of I and has close family ties,

including being actively involved and responsible for his family.




                                                  3

        Case 1:24-cr-10217-DJC         Document 21       Filed 01/03/25      Page 4 of 5




       The Court should also consider that, almost immediately after being confronted with his

conduct, Mr. Lelievre confessed, agreed to plead guilty, and sought permission from the Court to

repay the misappropriated funds.

       These facts warrant a more-lenient sentence than the typical defendant convicted of Covid-

19-related fraud.

       C.      Avoiding Sentencing Disparities and Providing Just Punishment

       The legislative history of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, which created the United

States Sentencing Commission, made clear that one of the Act’s goals was to rectify the serious

problem in the criminal justice system that white-collar offenders were not being adequately

punished. See S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 77 (1983) (“[S]ome major offenders, particularly white-

collar offenders . . . frequently do not receive sentences that reflect the seriousness of their

offenses.”). However, the Court must also “avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among

defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C.

3553(a)(6). As such, a period of incarceration at the low end of the sentencing range and

consideration of a period of home confinement is warranted.

       Where, as here, the “Offense Level” is 11, the Guidelines allow for the sentence imposed

to include a period of home confinement. See, e.g., USSG § 5C1.1(c) (allowing for a sentence of

imprisonment or probation in combination with, for example, home confinement, where the

Guidelines Sentencing Range is in Zone B); USSG § 5C1.1(e)(3) (allowing for “[o]ne day of home

detention for one day of imprisonment” if the Court imposes a “substitute sentence”). For example,

in a similar, recent case before another Session of this Court—a pandemic fraud case where the

“Offense Level” was 11—Judge Young imposed a one day sentence (deemed served) to be

followed by 36 months of supervised release with conditions including home confinement for the




                                                4

        Case 1:24-cr-10217-DJC            Document 21         Filed 01/03/25     Page 5 of 5




first six (6) months with electronic monitoring. United States v. Brooks, Case No.23-cr-10310-

WGY (ECF 36) (Sentencing Order).

                                           CONCLUSION

       For the foregoing reasons, the government respectfully submits that a sentence at the low

end of the sentencing range, with consideration of a period of home confinement, two years of

supervised release, and restitution is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the

purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

                                                       Respectfully submitted,

                                                       JOSHUA LEVY
                                                       United States Attorney

                                           By:         /s/ Kriss Basil
                                                       KRISS BASIL
                                                       CHRISTOPHER MARKHAM
                                                       Assistant United States Attorneys

                                   CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

        I certify that the foregoing document was filed through the Electronic Court Filing system
and will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic
Filing.

                                                       /s/ Kriss Basil
                                                       KRISS BASIL
                                                       Assistant United States Attorney




                                                   5

File and source

File

21.pdf

Size

149,145 bytes

SHA-256

9c3f0683bf88e3492c464d04937f9c423b9a490f7cc547755417af0ede000b92

Our copy

21.pdf