Court filing
Sentencing Transcript — U.S. v. LaRoche
Filed May 11, 2023 in U.S. v. Laroche; one of 13 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2023-05-11 |
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Fort Myers Division) · No. 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM · Doc. 42 · 2023-05-11 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
________________________________
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Case No.: 2:23-CR-13
)
AL CLINT LAROCHE, )
)
Defendant. )
________________________________)
SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE THOMAS P. BARBER
May 11, 2023
9:28 a.m. to 10:17 a.m.
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
TRENTON REICHLING, ESQUIRE
Office of the United States Attorney
2110 First Street
Room 3-137
Fort Myers, Florida 33901
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
GLENN H. MITCHELL, ESQUIRE
Law Office of Glenn H. Mitchell
1615 Forum Place
Suite 4B
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
ALSO PRESENT:
AL CLINT LAROCHE, DEFENDANT
(Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
produced by computer-aided transcription.)
REPORTED BY:
Rebekah M. Lockwood, RDR, CRR
Official Court Reporter
(813) 301-5380 | r.lockwooduscr@gmail.com
P.O. Box 173496, Tampa, Florida 33672
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 1 of 38 PageID 219
2
(Call to Order of the Court at 9:28 a.m.)
THE COURT: Okay. So this is the United States
versus Al Clint Laroche, Case 223-CR-13.
MR. REICHLING: Trent Reichling on behalf of the
United States.
MR. MITCHELL: Good morning, Your Honor. Glenn
Mitchell on behalf of Mr. Laroche, who is present, along with
many family members.
THE COURT: Mr. Laroche, raise your hand for me.
(The defendant is sworn.)
THE COURT: Very good. So looks like on
January 30th, you pled guilty to Count 1 and 2 of an
information, charging you with bank fraud, in violation of
Florida laws. I accepted your guilty plea.
We're now at the stage where we have to figure out
some things with the Sentencing Guidelines, starting with the
prosecutor. Have you had the opportunity to read and discuss
the presentence report, and do you have any objections to the
factual accuracy or Guideline calculations?
MR. REICHLING: Judge, the government has had an
opportunity to read the presentence report. We have no
objections to the factual accuracy of the report.
However, we do join in one objection that the defense
has with regards to the application of sophisticated means to
this offense. So I'm sure we can get into that momentarily.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 2 of 38 PageID 220
3
THE COURT: Just tell me what it is right now.
MR. REICHLING: My apologies, Judge.
Currently, he's an offense level 23. Sophisticated
means would be two additional levels. So he would be at a 21
now if you took out sophisticated means. If Your Honor wants
me to go into detail, I can explain why we believe the
sophisticated means does not apply here. But we do not have a
problem, and I'll probably go into that when I talk about the
facts of the case in a little bit.
But this is a PPP fraud case. Mr. Laroche got over a
million dollars in PPP money. He was working with another
individual who I also prosecuted before Judge Chappell that has
been sentenced already, who assisted Mr. Laroche in obtaining
both of these PPP loans.
THE COURT: That's Tisone?
MR. REICHLING: Correct, Judge.
THE COURT: What did he get?
MR. REICHLING: He got -- well, he got seven years.
He got a lot more loans. It was two-point -- he got around
$2.6 million. He also had actually a significant criminal
history. He had a robbery with a firearm when he was in
college. He also had ammunition in his home, unlawfully, as a
felon. There are a little bit more facts with Mr. Tisone that
warranted that sentence. At least that's the government's
position.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 3 of 38 PageID 221
4
In this case, Judge, to get the loans that
Mr. Laroche got with the first draw loan, there were some fake
tax documents, payroll tax documents -- they're called 941s or
quarterly tax returns -- that were submitted to qualify for the
loan. The investigation revealed that Daniel Tisone created
those documents.
Of course, the government believes that Mr. Laroche
was obviously aware he was obtaining these loans fraudulently,
knew that the numbers regarding payroll and numbers of
employees for these businesses was false. But as far as
generating these fake documents, which were just 941 tax
returns, it's the government's position that Mr. Tisone created
those documents.
So we believe the sophisticated means enhancement
does not apply here with Mr. Laroche. So that would drop him
to a 21. That would put him at 37 to 46 months.
There's one more objection the defense has to the
applicability of -- sorry, let me get to it -- it's driving
more than $1 million in gross receipts from one or more
financial institutions. It's Paragraph 46 in the PSR. That's
a three-level increase. The government does believe that
enhancement does apply. The bank that these funds were gotten
through was Blue Ridge Bank. They're an FDIC-insured bank.
They qualify as a financial institution.
He derived more than a million dollars from this
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 4 of 38 PageID 222
5
financial institution and by fraud. So the government does
believe that enhancement does apply, but the government does
believe that the sophisticated means enhancement does not
apply.
THE COURT: Well, let me ask a question here not
really about the Guidelines, but the very end of the defense
sentencing memorandum, it says, "Conclusion."
And it says, "Based on the facts and factors set
forth in this filing, Al Clint Laroche respectfully requests
this Court to impose a sentence below the advisory range
consistent with the agreement of the parties."
Was there a number you guys had in mind, like the
last case?
MR. REICHLING: No, Your Honor. There's not.
There's a plea agreement in place. I believe the government is
going to recommend a low-end sentence of the Guidelines.
There's no agreement as to what that sentence would be.
THE COURT: All right. Well, then, let's settle up
on this other objection in the Guidelines. Talk to me about
that. We'll figure that out right now.
MR. MITCHELL: Yes, Your Honor. This type of case is
a little bit different, and I pondered over this a bit. But
there's no question this is a base offense of seven, but
because the loss is more than 550,000, but less than
1.5 million, 14 points was added to that. And that would be
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 5 of 38 PageID 223
6
based on the million-dollar-plus loss in this case. So that is
accounted for in the 14 plus 14.
However, if we take a look at Paragraph 46, because
we're dealing with over a million dollars, another three points
is added because it is a financial institution. I submitted in
my objections that that appears to be double counting, that the
amount has already been taken into account with the plus 14.
So the plus three is because it's over a million
dollars, but it's allegedly derived from a financial
institution, which would be Blue Ridge Bank.
So, essentially, I submit it's double counting. The
three points should not be added because it's already been
accounted for in the plus 14.
But, also, I'm trying to figure out, and this has
been a little bit difficult, the word derived from a financial
institution. The word derived. There's no doubt it's a
financial institution. But this is a PPP loan.
THE COURT: Right. I understand. Whose money really
was it? Was it the bank's money or was it --
MR. MITCHELL: No.
THE COURT: Whose money was it then?
MR. MITCHELL: Yours and mine, tax taxpayers.
THE COURT: I know. That's not good for your client.
MR. MITCHELL: I know. I know. But reading --
reading this, is it really -- is this really intended, because
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 6 of 38 PageID 224
7
it's a government program? It was insured by the federal
government. There's no loss to the bank. Really, the use of a
bank was incidental to how this money was going to be going to
people who made the application for the PPP.
So for that reason, I'm also requesting that the
three-point enhancement on top of the 14 that's already been
accounted for, that the three points should not be added to the
score.
THE COURT: Okay. Yeah, I'm familiar with this.
We've had that conversation. I don't know why it is, but there
are more PPP fraud cases in Fort Myers than anyplace else that
I can tell. And so this had been brought up previously, and
I've looked at it, and I understand your argument, but I'm
going to overrule it, and we're going to keep it where it's at.
He's at a level 21. He has a criminal history category I,
which is the lowest. That creates a range of what to what now?
Level 21.
MR. REICHLING: Should be 37 to 46. But probation
can --
THE PROBATION OFFICER: That's correct, Your Honor,
37 to 46.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, before we do the
calculation, I had one other objection.
THE COURT: Oh, I'm sorry.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 7 of 38 PageID 225
8
MR. MITCHELL: That's fine. It's in Paragraph 48.
It would really be his role. This is troublesome too. I know
the Court is looking at, and the government has looked at,
we're dealing with a million dollars, which is a lot of money.
But if you take a look at his role, and I don't think there's
any dispute as to this.
THE COURT: Yeah. Yeah. I want to talk about that
anyway. I didn't know there was a Guideline issue. But tell
me about -- let me just interrupt you. Tell me about the scam
here. What is exactly -- I couldn't totally figure out. Is it
a totally fake business altogether? Is it just a Ponzi scheme
that's in the PPP world? What was happening?
MR. REICHLING: So Mr. -- the business that got the
loan money was called Bornwild.
THE COURT: That's his music thing?
MR. REICHLING: Right. That business was -- like,
you know how you can go on Sunbiz and continue to activate,
keep your business active for every year, whatever paperwork
you filed? The business had been inactive on Sunbiz for a
couple years.
When the PPP program sort of came about around that
period of time, the business was then active. Right? So --
and the loan was applied for. The number of employees, of
course, that was represented in the PPP application was
completely false. There were --
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 8 of 38 PageID 226
9
THE COURT: There were no employees. Right?
MR. REICHLING: Right. There might have been some --
maybe he called them independent contractors. But at least
what the government sees, there weren't 30, 40, 50 employees
for Mr. Laroche's business.
THE COURT: Let me talk to him about that.
On this thing, Mr. Laroche, tell me about this music.
I mean, I tried to -- I'm a music guy. I'm going on a trip
next week to Germany for the International Gustav Mahler Music
Festival. That's not the same music you're doing.
THE DEFENDANT: No, not at all. I do various types
of music. Right now I'm currently executive producing. I do
the executive producing role. So I'm actually executive
producing Ky-Mani Marley's album.
THE COURT: Producing what?
THE DEFENDANT: Ky-Mani Marley, Bob Marley's son.
THE COURT: Bob Marley's son?
THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
THE COURT: You're his producer?
THE DEFENDANT: I'm executive producing his albums.
THE COURT: Executive producer.
THE DEFENDANT: So basically what I do is, I have
writers signed on to me, and I have producers signed on to me.
We get the songs ready, have him record the songs, and get him
ready for his album release.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 9 of 38 PageID 227
10
THE COURT: So you're like Colonel Tom Parker for Bob
Marley's son.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm like ET Dong-Rin for --
THE COURT: All right. So you didn't really have any
employees at all. Right? That's totally take.
THE DEFENDANT: I had -- I had some employees with
me. I had --
THE COURT: How many real employees?
THE DEFENDANT: I had 11 employees.
THE COURT: What were they doing?
THE DEFENDANT: Like you said, they were contractors.
So I used producers, and I used songwriters. So they're
subcontracted to me.
THE COURT: But that's -- I guess where I'm going
with this, that's kind of a one-off thing. They're not --
these aren't -- you didn't have 11 people working 40 hours a
week, 50 weeks a year. These are people, you had a project,
you bring them on, they get that, and they're done. Right? Is
that fair?
THE DEFENDANT: No. I had a facility, facility where
they came in every day, we worked. So, basically, in order to
facilitate and executive produce all these albums, I had to be
creating every day. So when I wasn't creating, rent was still
due before I had my studio.
THE COURT: So you're telling me you had 11 employees
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 10 of 38 PageID 228
11
that were working basically full-time?
THE DEFENDANT: Just about.
THE COURT: All right. But, of course, you told the
government you had what, 50, 60 employees?
THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Go ahead. Go ahead,
Mr. Reichling.
MR. REICHLING: So the business -- I mean, we talked
about what his business was. I guess it was music related.
THE COURT: You've got to talk into the mic.
MR. REICHLING: Sorry, Judge.
That was music related. However, in the second draw
PPP -- so the first draw PPP application was around $400,000.
The government expanded the PPP program to allow you to apply
for another loan under that same business. So he got over
$600,000 for the second draw loan for that same business. And
in that -- there's a -- instead of multiplying your average
monthly payroll by two and a half, if you're a restaurant
business, you can multiply it by three and a half, which was
what was done in the second application.
So I would say that at least in the second
application, it's being represented that his business was in
the restaurant or hospitality industry. So that's -- that's
what was going on, Judge.
THE COURT: All right.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 11 of 38 PageID 229
12
MR. REICHLING: When it came to his role in the
offense, certainly, I -- there was -- he had some help in
manufacturing these false documents to qualify for the loan and
some guidance, but most of the money from the fraud went to
Mr. Laroche. There was some money that was kicked back to
Mr. Tisone, somewhere between 100 and $200,000, but at least
$800,000 or so, 1 million went to Mr. Laroche.
THE COURT: Any of that money been paid back?
MR. REICHLING: No.
THE COURT: Why not? Where's the rest of the money?
THE DEFENDANT: The money was utilized, like I said,
first, before I even built my studio, I was renting a studio
for almost $1,200 a day.
THE COURT: $1,200 a day?
THE DEFENDANT: $1,200 a day. Studio off Miami Beach
on 135th. Also, I built a studio from the ground up,
soundproofed everything. I probably spent 150 to $180,000 on
the studio with equipment and everything.
THE COURT: Where is that now?
THE DEFENDANT: It's -- I was evicted from it.
THE COURT: What?
THE DEFENDANT: I was evicted from it a year and a
half ago.
THE COURT: So you have a loan, and somebody
foreclosed on the loan? Now you get evicted. You don't own it
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 12 of 38 PageID 230
13
free and clear.
THE DEFENDANT: What happened, I went in and started
building. I was giving permission to build without my permits.
And I went and built without permits, and then it was taken
away from me, and that was rented out.
THE COURT: That's a different problem.
Okay. So back to whether it's sophisticated means or
not. That's where we were. Go ahead.
MR. REICHLING: Judge, my apologies. I believe we're
just at the role of the offense. The government agrees
sophisticated means doesn't apply.
THE COURT: No, he says --
MR. MITCHELL: Yes. We've agreed as to the
sophistication. So that's the two points that we've agreed to.
But under Paragraph 48, the role.
THE COURT: That's what I meant. That's what we're
talking about. Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: And, yes, it's a million dollars, but
if we really look at what Mr. Laroche did, he went to
Mr. Tisone to repair his credit. And, again, he cooperated
with the government. He filled in the government with
everything he did.
But it was Mr. Tisone, where my client went to get
his credit repaired, who indicated there was a program PPP.
This was brought up by Mr. Tisone. Mr. Tisone essentially did
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 13 of 38 PageID 231
14
everything other than my client signed, sign here, sign there.
If we're talking about what he did, that's what he
did. He signed. Although he did realize what he did was
wrong, again, he did have employees, but he didn't have the
employees that was represented on paper. He saw the paper.
Mr. Tisone said just sign it, and that's what he did.
Mr. Laroche did not come up with all of this
information as to what to put in the documentation. That was
Mr. Tisone and others who prepared all of that. My client
signed. He did receive the benefits.
Although, if we take a look at -- the government
indicated, and it is indicating that some money was given back
to Mr. Tisone, their numbers really only pertain to the first
loan. Additional funds were provided to Mr. Tisone through
others. My client was required to take cash.
So we're really talking about a third of it, give or
take, because we're only talking about in the PSI, the first
loan. But other money was given to Mr. Tisone. He's the one
who orchestrated all of this and told my client what to do.
So I submit that by signing, yes, my client did
benefit from this, but that's the extent of what he did. He
did not come up with these employees. He did not come up with
this information. This information apparently was usurped by
Mr. Tisone from others. And, apparently, it was actually an
ongoing business somewhere, but it wasn't my client's.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 14 of 38 PageID 232
15
So in terms of what he did, I submit his role is
mitigating. It should be mitigated. His role was -- he's a
minor participant. He did participate. He did receive a lot
of money. But that's what he did. He signed. He did what he
was told.
THE COURT: Okay. I understand the argument, but I'm
overruling that also. I mean, two trips to the bank here was
too many. Maybe if it was just one, I could go your way on
that, but doing it twice, especially saying you're involved in
a restaurant business. This had nothing to do with food or --
I guess -- what is it, restaurant or entertainment? How did
they phrase it?
MR. REICHLING: As far as what's in the application,
Judge?
THE COURT: Yeah.
MR. REICHLING: I believe it's, like, hospitality.
THE COURT: Hospitality. So music is part of the
hospitality? I don't know. That doesn't work. So his
Guideline range is 37 to 46, two to five years' supervised
release, possible restitution of 1,078,652.50. That's an
agreed-upon number? Can we agree on that number?
MR. REICHLING: I believe so, Judge. I'll leave it
to the defense. I believe there's no objection as to the
amount of restitution.
THE COURT: We okay on that number?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 15 of 38 PageID 233
16
MR. MITCHELL: Based on your rulings, that's what the
numbers would be.
THE COURT: I don't think the Guidelines -- the
restitution is the number that they're saying.
MR. MITCHELL: Right.
THE COURT: And a possible fine of 20,000 to two --
THE PROBATION OFFICER: Your Honor, with that
objection sustained, it's 15,000 now.
THE COURT: 15,000 to 2.157,305?
THE PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: 200-dollar special assessment. That's
the Guidelines. Guidelines are identified. Possible maximum
here is 30 years. The advisory sentencing range is 37 to 46.
What sentence does the government recommend? You
said before 37?
MR. REICHLING: That's -- yeah, Judge. The
government recommends 37 months with, of course, supervised
release to follow and restitution made a condition of his
supervised release.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. REICHLING: Obviously, incorporating any
preliminary forfeiture orders into the final judgment and
sentence.
THE COURT: Yeah. Is there anything else you need to
say on this? Any reasoning?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 16 of 38 PageID 234
17
MR. REICHLING: No, Judge. I mean, I think I've said
enough. Your Honor is aware of the facts in the case, so --
THE COURT: All right. Defense, what sentence do you
think is appropriate here in light of what we've been talking
about?
MR. MITCHELL: Judge, I have also filed a motion for
the Court to consider a variance. What I have requested is --
it's in my motion. But I'm troubled, and I want to answer the
Court's question. I understand, my client understands the
severity of the matter, especially in light of the amount
involved.
THE COURT: And that none of it's been paid back.
I've sentenced people before much less than they really
deserved if they were able to pay some of it back, because this
wasn't like 300 years ago that this happened.
MR. MITCHELL: I understand. But the government,
I've spoken with, my client has spoken with, and I think they
realize that the money has been utilized, and it is not
available.
But the one thing, and I will answer the -- this
question, but my client is in a very unusual and different type
of employment. It's a type of employment where a lot of times
money is not available, but many times it is, especially if
we're dealing with the performers who he is connected with.
And I was speaking to him this morning about this.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 17 of 38 PageID 235
18
Is this the type of matter where if things break correctly, is
a million dollars something that he could pay back? And the
answer would be yes.
So if restitution is important, and it should be, and
he has indicated that he is willing to do everything he needs
to do to pay it back, he has the potential to be able to pay it
back if some of this work comes to fruition. Can it be
guaranteed? It can't be guaranteed, but there are many, many
signs here that this is very viable.
That being the case, I would ask the Court to
consider placing him on home detention. I understand what the
Guidelines are. To give him as much of an opportunity to pay
this money back, as the Court indicated was important. Today,
he can't do it. But when I hear the name of the performers,
who even I know, which is amazing --
THE COURT: No. So even I know, which is even more
persuasive.
MR. MITCHELL: And if I know this --
THE COURT: By the way, I'll just interrupt you. We
had a big thing in Tampa recently where a -- it was Taylor
Swift. Taylor Swift did three days in Tampa. Traffic was
terrible. You couldn't find -- everything was occupied, people
everywhere. And I couldn't tell a difference between Taylor
Swift and Brittany Spears. Okay. So that shows you my level
of understanding. And I even understood Bob Marley's son. So
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 18 of 38 PageID 236
19
I get it.
Go ahead. Go ahead.
MR. MITCHELL: So if that's important to the Court,
and it should be, if that's important to the government, it
should be. It is important to Mr. Laroche. It should be and
will be. If we can give him a chance to continue doing what
he's doing, there is a realistic possibility this amount of
money can be paid.
I'd just like to mention a couple other things. My
client immediately cooperated with the government. This is an
unusual case, from what many times we're involved with, where
they start at the bottom and move to the top, and information
that's provided is critical on moving up the ladder.
This is the opposite. They made their arrest at the
top, Mr. Tisone, and based on bank records, talking to people,
worked their way down. The government apparently decided that
the information my client had isn't going to reach the level of
substantial assistance, but that doesn't mean that he didn't
provide important information. And they decided, based on the
information he had, not to take it any further, at least as of
this date. I don't know what their position is going to be in
the future.
And, additionally, and this is very, very, very
important, his family history. We've talked about that. I
know some of his family would like to speak with you. I know
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 19 of 38 PageID 237
20
Mr. Laroche would absolutely like to address the Court. But
I'm asking the Court to consider some form of home detention,
long-term probation. If the Court had to, again, to teach him
a lesson, although he's learned it now, and as you can see, his
support system is incredible, perhaps a year and a day. But I
know the -- I know his sister would like to address you.
THE COURT: I'm happy to talk to anybody that wants
to say anything, so let's do it.
MR. MITCHELL: Alicia Laroche. Where would you like
her?
THE COURT: Right at the podium right there in the
middle.
Just tell us your name and how to spell it. Bend
that mic up a little bit. There you go.
MS. LAROCHE: My name is Alicia, A-l-i-c-i-a. Last
name, L-a-r-o-c-h-e.
THE COURT: And you're from New York?
MS. LAROCHE: From New York.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. LAROCHE: I had to write this down. I'm
emotional.
THE COURT: Just a second now. If you have something
written down, you've got a couple options. I can just read it,
if you have good writing. I can read it out loud --
MS. LAROCHE: My hand was shaking. I'm okay reading
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 20 of 38 PageID 238
21
it.
THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.
MS. LAROCHE: I am his younger sister. And as you
can see, I traveled with my entire family for him. We came
from New York. My grandparents came from Orlando. We stand
beside him. No matter what, we support him.
He has always been the most charismatic person. Life
is a party in any room that he walks in. That's what he is to
us. He's always been the most generous, humble person,
literally taking the clothes off his back, literally, to help
other people. He has the most tender heart with his children,
with his wife, with his pets. We always joke that he was "Ace
Ventura: Pet Detective," because he always has a bunch of
animals he loves.
This is not how our family raised us. And as much as
we are very disappointed with his involvement in this and we
wish that he never did, we support him. There's no distance
that would keep us from being here today to support him.
He is the oldest of all of our siblings. And even
though he lives in Florida, we have maintained a very close
relationship with him, despite living many miles apart.
He is the center of this family. And my niece and my
nephews count on him, both financially, mentally, emotionally.
His wife depends on him also. His presence in his home is
pivotal to the mental health of his children and his wife.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 21 of 38 PageID 239
22
None of us want to know a life or know a life without
Al. He is not perfect. He has made mistakes. But he's
remorseful. He's held himself accountable. And he has a huge
support system that's riding behind him that love him dearly.
And we're pushing him. Although he's pushing hisself, we're
pushing him to be the person that he was raised to be.
So I'm asking for you guys to please look at him
through our eyes and our lens, because he's not a monster.
He's not a criminal. He's a loving father.
THE COURT: Nobody said -- nobody is saying he's a
monster.
MS. LAROCHE: I know.
THE COURT: All right. Nobody is saying that.
MS. LAROCHE: He knows he did something wrong, but we
love him, and he's a great person. So we just want you to see
him through the eyes we see him with. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you. I know he appreciates you
being here. Now you've gotten all of your family members
upset. I'm seeing four or five people crying now. All right.
And I know it's emotional for you, but keep in mind, he's
facing a maximum sentence of 30 years. I'm not going to be
sentencing him to 30 years. But we're going to talk about
what's fair and appropriate.
So we'll go -- who else is --
MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Laroche.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 22 of 38 PageID 240
23
THE COURT: You can go from right there. Just use
the mic. Same thing, if you have something written, you can
read it, I can read it out loud, or I can read it to myself.
You make the call.
THE DEFENDANT: I'll take it.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
THE DEFENDANT: First of all, good morning, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: Morning.
THE DEFENDANT: I'm here today feeling the weight of
my mistakes crashing down on me. Excuse me. It's hard to find
the right words to say, but it's important to let you know how
truly sorry I am.
I take full blame for everything I've done. I can't
express enough how remorseful I am for my actions. I see the
pain I've caused and the hurt, and it hurts me. I never wanted
to hurt anyone, especially those who mean the most to me. But
I messed up. I'm ashamed because of it.
This experience has taught me a hard lesson, and it's
one that will stay with me forever. I've come to realize the
importance of empathy. I've been true to myself. I've learned
the hard way that one mistake can shatter everything. I carry
the weight of my actions, and I know that I have left scars
that won't be healed easily.
To all those that I've hurt, please believe me when I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 23 of 38 PageID 241
24
say I'm truly sorry.
To my wife and my children, please know that I'm
here, humble, remorseful, ready to do whatever it takes to heal
the wounds that I've caused. I love you more than words can
express. I hope you find it in your hearts to give me a chance
to prove that I can be the husband and the father you and my
children deserve. Within time, I can show through my actions
that I've been changed and I'm a different person now. I'm
determined to make things right not just for myself, but for
those who have been affected by my mistakes. I'm committed to
learning from this pain to grow as a person, both mentally and
spiritually.
I want you to know that these words come straight
from my heart. And I can't express how sorry I am, but hope
that you can feel my sincerity.
Thank you for giving me a chance to apologize and
show how much I truly regret my actions. Thank you, Your
Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's talk about this thing a
little bit, Mr. Laroche. Put the emotion aside, and let's talk
turkey here. Okay. They're telling me you got 800 grand.
THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
THE COURT: I don't think I could spend 800 grand
even in three years. What in the world did you do with the
money? You told me you sunk some of it into a studio, but come
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 24 of 38 PageID 242
25
on.
THE DEFENDANT: I have 11 employees. Eleven
employees receive money. I did not give any money to them. I
gave money. I took a little bit back to take care of certain
things, taxes, whatever I was doing with it, for my personal
use also, and -- but I gave a lot of it to those 11 people.
THE COURT: Okay. That's still a lot of money, and
you don't have anything left to pay back. I've worked with
some people similar to you who have been able to come up with
some money, real money, not hopefully deals working in the
future, but real money on the table. I've worked with them,
and they got a lot less time than -- behind bars than maybe
they deserved because they were able to get it paid back.
THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
THE COURT: But you -- not only did you get all this
money, but you don't have any of it to pay back, and that's --
that's a hard -- that's a hard situation on my end of it,
conversation here, when you got so much money and it's all gone
that quickly.
Did you buy yourself an expensive car or something
like that?
THE DEFENDANT: I bought a Mercedes Benz. I didn't
cash out on anything. I still have payments on it today.
THE COURT: So you didn't buy -- so you bought it,
but you have payments to make?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 25 of 38 PageID 243
26
THE DEFENDANT: Correct. I took a loan out.
THE COURT: There's nothing you can sell to generate
any money.
THE DEFENDANT: No.
THE COURT: That's it. That's the problem.
THE DEFENDANT: All I have is my upcoming projects.
THE COURT: Right. Do you have any information,
Mr. Reichling, on what he did with the money? I mean, is he --
MR. REICHLING: Yeah, Judge. There's -- a lot of it
is in the PSR, beginning on Page 7, Paragraph 28, 27. I
would -- you know, as surprising as Your Honor would think it
is to spend over $800,000 quickly, the government was not --
once you look at the bank records, you're not as surprised.
There were tons of cash withdrawals, $200,000 in cash
withdrawals, Judge. There were checks that were written to
individuals.
THE COURT: This doesn't tell me what he did with the
money. This just says it went into banks and went out.
MR. REICHLING: Right. The money would go in and it
would just go out. I mean, it was quick, Judge. I mean, money
would be taken out as cash.
THE COURT: Is there something -- is there something
you're not telling me? Do you have a gambling problem or
something?
THE DEFENDANT: No, I don't. I don't. Anytime I was
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 26 of 38 PageID 244
27
taking out big lump sums of cash, I was dealing with Tisone.
That was the cash I was sending out to Tisone, most of it.
MR. REICHLING: I would disagree, Judge. I don't
think that is the case. But he was, you know, staying in
hotels, going to restaurants, making retail purchases, like
Saks Fifth Avenue.
I know he spent money on paying for a music video to
be made. I believe he had a very expensive music video for one
of his songs with the money. So, you know, your
run-of-the-mill retail purchases, restaurant purchases, hotel
stays, entertainment, you know, spending, Judge, tons of cash
withdrawals.
But I -- there are two -- there were two $50,000 wire
transfers to Tisone, which related to kicking a percentage back
to Tisone. There may have been some cash payments to Tisone,
but, you know, what we truly know of how much that is, we don't
know.
And then there were these checks that were issued to
individuals. Those checks were endorsed by the individuals and
Laroche on the backs of the checks. And the government
believes that Mr. Laroche took those individuals to his bank,
which was JP Morgan Chase, and just cashed those checks, and
the cash got kicked back to Mr. Laroche. This was done to make
it appear as if Mr. Laroche had employees that he was paying.
He was using the money for payroll. And that's -- that wasn't
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 27 of 38 PageID 245
28
the case, Judge. I think a lot of this money was being kicked
back to Mr. Laroche. He was just spending it like crazy.
THE COURT: All right. Which is what you're saying,
he's saying he spent it all. That's what he's telling me.
THE DEFENDANT: No, definitely not. Every time --
what he's talking about is at Chase Morgan Bank, when I first
wrote checks to my 11 employees that I stated I had, they
didn't allow them to cash any checks. They wanted me to come
down, and I put my debit card in and cashed their checks for
them, because they wanted them to open up bank accounts in
order to cash the check. So that's why I ended up doing it,
and I just kept following suit every time the same way.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE DEFENDANT: Not any withdrawals or anything big
that you're seeing. I was always advised to do something.
Like I said, they fix credit also. So, you know, I
was advised to do certain things for my employees and fix this
credit for this person or, you know, you need this for that.
Anything that I needed, I just -- I did.
THE COURT: Well, the next question I have, we're
talking about what you did with the money.
THE DEFENDANT: Correct.
THE COURT: My next question probably should have
been my first question. Why? You've got a nice family.
You've got what, three kids, 14, 10, and 5. I mean, you
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 28 of 38 PageID 246
29
know --
THE DEFENDANT: I was -- it started with me fixing my
credit up, trying to get the regular loan that I was supposed
to get for my business. And when I got to where my goal to
where I was supposed to be, I was introduced to this PPP loan
thing. I just said, I was told it was a couple things that
needed to be altered. I didn't know he was going to put down
61 employees, I was going to be a restaurant. I'm music. I
didn't even know I had a restaurant in my name. I thought I
was signing for Bornwild Music.
THE COURT: If it's too good to be true, it probably
is. I mean, that amount of money, at some point, you should
have figured out that that was too much. If it was a couple
grand, fine. But when it gets to the numbers you were dealing
with, you had to have known that that wasn't legitimate.
THE DEFENDANT: I knew something was being altered,
correct.
THE COURT: All right. What else? Anything else
anybody wants to say on this one?
MR. REICHLING: No.
MR. MITCHELL: Nothing additional, Your Honor. I
just rely on what I had filed.
THE COURT: All right. Okay. Get everything in
order.
So at this point, now, I've heard from everyone that
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 29 of 38 PageID 247
30
wanted to speak. I reviewed the presentence report and the
written submissions and the advisory Guidelines.
Pursuant to Title 18 U.S. Code Section 3551 and 3553,
it is my judgment that the defendant will be sentenced to the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons for a term I'll announce
momentarily.
Upon release, you have to serve three years of
supervised release. That is a year as to -- wait a minute. He
can do three years on both counts. Right?
THE PROBATION OFFICER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Three years concurrently. So when you
get out, you're going to be on what's called supervised
release. Probation, basically, where you're going to have to
abide by the standard conditions in the Middle District of
Florida as well as some special conditions.
You have to submit to a search of your residence,
vehicle, wherever you may be living, by your probation officer.
If they think you have any illegal substances or any contraband
or you're doing anything illegal, you're violating any
conditions of the release, they can just show up and say, We're
going to search. They don't need a warrant or anything like
that.
If you fail to submit to a search, that can be
grounds for revocation.
That applies to your person, residence, place of
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 30 of 38 PageID 248
31
business, storage units, computers, vehicles, boats, RVs,
anything that you may have.
You also have to submit to -- your financial records
to their inspection. If they want to look at them at any time
to make sure you're not doing anything funky with money, that
has to be -- your financial records are an open book. They can
be searched by your probation officer at any time.
You also are prohibited from incurring new credit
charges, opening additional lines of credit, or obligating
yourself for any major purchases without the approval of your
probation officer.
You have to give up DNA since you've been convicted
of a qualifying felony.
You have to refrain from any use of unlawful
substances.
You'll have random drug tests not to exceed 104 per
year or figures to be twice a week. Those will start within 15
days of placement on supervision.
You have to pay restitution in the amount of
1,078,652.50 to the Small Business Administration.
That obligation is payable to the Clerk of the U.S.
District Court for distribution to the victims. You have to
pay the balance and monthly payments of 10 percent of your
monthly income. While in custody, you shall either pay $25
quarterly if you have a nonUNICOR job or 50 percent of your
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 31 of 38 PageID 249
32
monthly earnings if you have a UNICOR job.
Upon release from custody, your financial
circumstances will be evaluated, and the Court may establish a
new payment schedule accordingly. At any time during the
course of post-release supervision, the victim, the government,
or the defendant may notify the Court of a material change in
his ability to pay, and the Court may adjust the schedule
accordingly.
I find that the defendant does have the ability to
pay interest, so that's part of that.
He does not have to pay a fine, though. I'm not
going to hit him with that.
Is there anything to forfeit?
MR. REICHLING: Judge, there's -- the forfeiture is
just the amount of funds that he took. I believe there was a
final order of forfeiture.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. REICHLING: At least a request for an order of
forfeiture. But, yeah, it would be the same amount that's the
restitution amount, which is --
THE COURT: Very good. That will be entered.
There's a 200-dollar special assessment, which is due
immediately.
I've accepted the plea agreement because I'm
satisfied it adequately reflects the seriousness of the actual
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 32 of 38 PageID 250
33
offense, and accepting the plea agreement will not undermine
the statutory purposes of sentencing.
Under your plea agreement, you probably don't have a
right to appeal. But if you do, you have to do that within 14
days. If you don't do it within 14 days, you lose your right
to appeal. The government may file an appeal from the
sentence.
You're also advised you're entitled to the assistance
of counsel in taking an appeal. If you can't afford a lawyer
for an appeal, you can have a free lawyer for that, and the
clerk will take your appeal for free if you can't afford that.
Let's see. Where else are we on this?
There's a mention of -- are you not a US citizen
here? Are you going to get deported over this? What are we
doing? He's been in the country his whole life. He went to
high school here. What's going on with that?
MR. MITCHELL: Right now, that is a possibility.
That was discussed. He is not a citizen, but he's lived here
for a long period of time.
THE COURT: I'm not ordering he be deported. I don't
really have that authority. That's done in a totally separate
procedure. My recommendation, if anybody cares, is that he's
not deported. He's as much of an American as the rest of us.
How long have you lived here, since you were how old?
THE DEFENDANT: Five.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 33 of 38 PageID 251
34
THE COURT: Five years old. So, I mean, deporting
him to where, Trinidad?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah.
THE COURT: I don't know. That's not a bad place to
get deported to, but you want to stay here. So I'm not -- I'm
not saying that that be done. But that's a whole separate
proceeding with the immigration people and stuff like that. So
I don't have any control over that, one way or the other, so
I'm going to not say anything about that in this sentence at
all.
Let's see. What else? I think that covers most of
that.
After considering the advisory Sentencing Guidelines
and all the factors identified in Title 18 U.S. Code Section
3553(a)(1) through (7), I find the sentence I'm about to impose
is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with
the statutory purposes of sentencing.
So I understand you've requested house arrest. It's
just -- I can't do that. I want to work with you. I mean,
everything I see is positive. You are a productive member of
society. You know, a little marijuana charge here or there.
You're not committing crime. You're a good parent. I've got a
nice letter from your wife in a very large font, which I
appreciate.
Who wrote that? Where are you? Thank you. It's
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 34 of 38 PageID 252
35
much easier to read.
You know, you have a great family. I don't -- most
of the time, the people I send to prison, I think they've --
you know, it doesn't bother me to do it because they clearly
deserve it and they're bad people.
I don't think you're a bad person at all. I think
you're a good person who messed up badly. And the problem I've
got here is there's just so much money. You know, if we could
take a zero off of this and it was 80,000, we'd be talking
about home detention. But 800 is too much. It's too much.
So you're going to have to do some time for me on
this thing. And none of it's paid back. So you're going to
have to do some time.
The question is how much? The advisory Sentencing
Guidelines, your lawyer was able to get them down to 37 to 46.
It is advisory. I'm willing to go lower than that, because of
the things I mentioned. You've been gainfully employed. You
are a productive member of society. This is a one-time only
thing. It's financial crime. You know, no one was physically
hurt by it, but you do have to do some time.
After evaluating all these things, I think the
appropriate time is 24 months. All right. You're going to
have to do 24 months. It's a below-Guideline sentence.
I'm sure the government is objecting. Right,
Mr. Reichling?
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 35 of 38 PageID 253
36
MR. REICHLING: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: But you don't have to turn yourself in.
I'll give you to June 15th. Is that a Sunday or whatever the
middle of June is, turn yourself in then. Do the time. You'll
get out before you know it. You'll be back to hopefully
getting that deal done.
And if along the way you can get some money paid
back, a decent amount, let your lawyer know, and we'll do
something called Rule 35. I'll look at it. And if I think
that that's legitimate, I might commute your sentence. But I'm
not doing it for five grand. I mean, some real money toward
this, come talk to me, and you can get out sooner if you can
get that done.
THE DEFENDANT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Anybody want to say anything
else?
MR. REICHLING: No, Your Honor. Thanks.
MR. MITCHELL: Your Honor, one other request. I know
it would be a recommendation. My client is requesting that for
a recommendation that he serve a sentence, he was hoping in
Pensacola, but North Florida. We know it would only be a
recommendation.
THE COURT: That's fine. I'll recommend that. He
has to meet with the U.S. Marshals on the first floor right
after this. You can talk a little bit about that. I'll make
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 36 of 38 PageID 254
37
that recommendation. That's fine.
Is that the place they call Club Fed? Right? Where
they put the white-collar people.
MR. MITCHELL: The research my client did, apparently
there's some programs there that will be effective.
THE COURT: I don't know. I was up there -- I was up
there -- I didn't tour the prison. I don't know what they've
got going up there. But if you're interested in that, that's
fine with me.
All right. Good luck.
Thank y'all for being here. I know he appreciates
it. Take care.
(Proceedings adjourned at 10:17 a.m.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 37 of 38 PageID 255
38
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF HILLSBOROUGH
I, Rebekah M. Lockwood, RDR, CRR, do hereby certify
that I was authorized to and did stenographically report the
foregoing proceedings; and that the foregoing pages constitute
a true and complete computer-aided transcription of my original
stenographic notes to the best of my knowledge, skill, and
ability.
I further certify that I am not a relative, employee,
attorney, or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a relative
or employee of any of the parties' attorneys or counsel
connected with the action, nor am I financially interested in
the action.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand at Tampa,
Hillsborough County, Florida, this 12th day of July 2024.
_______________________________
REBEKAH M. LOCKWOOD, RDR, CRR
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
Middle District of Florida
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Case 2:23-cr-00013-TPB-NPM Document 42 Filed 07/12/24 Page 38 of 38 PageID 256File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flmd.410261.42.0.pdf
- Size
- 477,109 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1b9446f14f6be5c3f81cb27a81751650ea56f7f695855cb7b521c5ee2a615b0e
- Original
- PACER (login required)