Court filing
Government's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Lydia Spencer (S.D. W. Va.)
Filed July 10, 2024 in U.S. v. Lydia Spencer; one of 6 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-07-10 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00053 · Doc. 20 · 2024-07-10 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CRIMINAL NO. 2:24-cr-00053
LYDIA SPENCER
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
Comes now the United States of America, by Holly J. Wilson, Assistant United States
Attorney, and submits this Sentencing Memorandum requesting that this Court impose a
within-Guidelines sentence for defendant Lydia Spencer (“Ms. Spencer”).
INTRODUCTION
On April 5, 2024, Ms. Spencer pled guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1344 and 1349. PSR ¶ 2. The United States has no outstanding objections to the
Presentence Report (“PSR”). The Probation Officer correctly calculated the total offense to be 9.
PSR ¶¶ 17-25, 62. Ms. Spencer is in criminal history category II, and her advisory guideline range is
6-12 months’ imprisonment. PSR ¶ 62.
AVAILABLE SENTENCES
Ms. Spencer’s adjusted offense level falls within Zone B of the Sentencing Table. Zone B
sentences may be satisfied by (1) a sentence of imprisonment; (2) a sentence of imprisonment that
includes a term of supervised release with a condition that substitutes community confinement or
home detention according to the schedule in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(e), provided that at least one month is
satisfied by imprisonment; or (3) a sentence of probation that includes a condition or combination of
conditions that substitute intermittent confinement, community confinement or home detention for
imprisonment according to the schedule in U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(e).
Case 2:24-cr-00053 Document 20 Filed 07/10/24 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 71
2
SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION
The 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors all justify a within-Guidelines term of imprisonment in this
case.
A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offense
The nature and circumstances of the offense are particularly troubling because Ms. Spencer
exploited a generational tragedy to enrich herself through fraud.
In late 2019, the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) began spreading throughout the
world. This new virus brought sickness, death, and fear on an unfathomable scale. Upon learning of
COVID-19 and its potential impacts, the United States government implemented extraordinary
measures aimed to protect its citizens and the economy. Chief among these measures was the passage
of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act. PSR ¶ 5. The CARES Act,
in part, created the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). PSR ¶ 5. The PPP provided forgivable
government-backed loans to all qualifying small businesses impacted by COVID-19 that used the
loaned money on qualifying business expenses. PSR ¶ 5. The PPP’s purpose was to provide an
infusion of cash to businesses victimized by COVID-19 and to keep the U.S. economy afloat in the
process.
It was during this time of great suffering that Ms. Spencer and her friends, K.S. and S.W. and
others, saw an opportunity to fraudulently enrich themselves. In the spring of 2021, S.W. approached
Ms. Spencer and explained to her how she could get easy money through the PPP. PSR ¶ 6; Stip. of
Facts at 2. It was simple. Ms. Spencer would give her personal information to S.W., S.W. would
provide the information to K.S., and K.S. would apply for fraudulent PPP loans in Ms. Spencer’s
name. PSR ¶ 6; Stip. of Facts at 2. Once Ms. Spencer received the PPP loan money, she would send
K.S. a portion as payment for her help. PSR ¶ 6; Stip. of Facts at 2. Ms. Spencer agreed. Stipulation
of Facts 2. Thereafter, Ms. Spencer provided the information needed, K.S. submitted two fraudulent
Case 2:24-cr-00053 Document 20 Filed 07/10/24 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 72
3
PPP loans in Ms. Spencer’s name, and Ms. Spencer received $31,250 of fraudulent PPP loan proceeds.
PSR ¶¶ 6-8. Ms. Spencer then sent $4,000 of the money to K.S. in CashApp for K.S.’s help, and she
labelled the transfers as for “marketing” to obscure the true nature of the funds. PSR ¶ 10. She spent
the rest of the money on herself. PSR ¶ 9.
B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
Ms. Spencer’s history and characteristics do not support a sentence outside of her applicable
Guidelines range. She has no special conditions that would indicate she is not an appropriate candidate
for incarceration.
She is 33 years old, and she is currently housed in South Central Regional Jail while she awaits
trial on pending charges. PSR at 2. She received her high school diploma from Capitol High School
in 2009. PSR ¶ 55.
Ms. Spencer’s criminal history includes a drug related conviction. PSR ¶ 27. Additionally, she
has admitted to possessing a firearm, despite being prohibited from doing so. PSR ¶ 36 (“The officer
asked the defendant if she had a weapon, and she responded that she had a firearm in her bag.”); see
United States v. Berry, 553 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting that while “a sentencing court can not base
sentencing decisions on a bare arrest record[,] . . . appellate courts do permit consideration of the
underlying conduct where reliable evidence of that conduct is proffered or where the PSR adequately
details the underlying facts without objection from the defendant.”).
In 2014, Ms. Spencer admitted to having drank alcohol heavily when she was 18 years old.
PSR ¶ 54. More recent information regarding her substance abuse is unavailable. PSR ¶ 54.
Ms. Spencer timely accepted responsibility for her actions and agreed to restitution for the
offense of conviction. PSR ¶ 15.
Case 2:24-cr-00053 Document 20 Filed 07/10/24 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 73
4
C. The Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote
Respect for the Law, Provide Just Punishment, Provide Adequate Deterrence, and
Protect the Public
A sentence of imprisonment between 6 to 12 months would also reflect the seriousness of the
offense, promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, provide adequate deterrence, and
protect the public.
Ms. Spencer took advantage of governmental efforts to aid those in need, for her own financial
gain. While uncertainty and suffering increased worldwide, Ms. Spencer’s bank account increased
through fraud. Her actions are serious, and the impact extends beyond this case. Each time federal
benefits are obtained through fraud, it misappropriates taxpayer dollars and erodes public confidence
in government. Ms. Spencer’s conduct demonstrates a disregard for the law and a fundamental failure
to appreciate the purpose of COVID-19 relief funds. A Guidelines-term of imprisonment would
provide just punishment for such a serious offense.
A sentence within Ms. Spencer’s advisory Guidelines range is also needed to protect the public
and deter Ms. Spencer, and others, from engaging in similar conduct. Ms. Spencer is now a recidivist,
and she has shown that she lacks adequate respect for the law to avoid criminal conduct—despite
having already served a term of imprisonment. PSR ¶ 27. She also has a history that involves drugs
and guns. Id. ¶¶ 27, 36. She therefore presents a risk to the public. A within-Guidelines sentence would
protect this community and send Ms. Spencer a clear message: you must obey the law.
Further, Government program fraud is highly susceptible to general deterrence because it is a
deliberate and calculated crime of choice. United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240 (11th Cir. 2006)
(finding that crimes that are “rational, cool, and calculated” rather than “crimes of passion or
opportunity” are “prime candidate[s] for general deterrence”) (citation omitted). And, Congress has
recognized that general deterrence is particularly important in the context of white-collar crime. United
States v. Sample, 901 F.3d 1196, 1200 (10th Cir. 2018) (citing United States v. Martin, 455 F.3d 1227, 1240
Case 2:24-cr-00053 Document 20 Filed 07/10/24 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 74
5
(11th 2006) (“[T]he Congress that adopted the § 3553 sentencing factors emphasized the critical
deterrent value of imprisoning serious white collar criminals, even where those criminals might
themselves be unlikely to commit another offense.”); S. Rep. No. 98-225, at 76 (1983), reprinted in 1984
U.S.C.C.A.N. 3182, 3259 (“The second purpose of sentencing is to deter others from committing the
offense. This is particularly important in the area of white collar crime.”)). “[I]n enacting § 3553,
Congress was especially concerned that prior to the Sentencing Guidelines, major white-collar
criminals often were sentenced to small fines and little or no imprisonment.” United States v. Livesay,
587 F.3d 1274, 1279 (11th Cir. 2009) (cleaned up).
CONCLUSION
Ms. Spencer used fraud and deception to profit from a worldwide pandemic. A sentence
within Ms. Spencer’s advisory guideline range of 6 to 12 months would be an appropriate sentence
considering all the factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The United States does not intend to call any
witnesses at the sentencing hearing and believes the hearing can be conducted in thirty minutes.
Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM S. THOMPSON
United States Attorney
By:
s/ Holly J. Wilson
Holly J. Wilson
Assistant United States Attorney
WV State Bar No. 13060
300 Virginia Street, East, Room 4000
Charleston, WV 25301
Phone: 304-345-2200
Fax: 304-347-5104
E-mail: holly.wilson@usdoj.gov
Case 2:24-cr-00053 Document 20 Filed 07/10/24 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 75File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wvsd.238890.20.0.pdf
- Size
- 124,246 bytes
- SHA-256
- a58c99c7e6027f6a49ec256172a45d2c7ca065e8f4083debbfe5898cd047f04a
- Original
- PACER (login required)