Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Edward McCorkle (D. Md.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · No. 1:25-cr-00270-RDB · Doc. 19 · 2026-01-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
        
            
*  
*  
*  
*  
 
v.   
  
  
 
*  
*  
*  
*  
  
 
Docket No.: 1:25-CR-00270-RDB 
 EDWARD MCCORKLE.  
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *   * 
*  
*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  
DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN AID OF SENTENCING 
 
The Honorable Judge Richard D. Bennett 
United States District Court, District of Maryland 
101 West Lombard Street 
Baltimore, MD 21201 
 
 
Re: 
United States v. Edward McCorkle, 1:25-CR-00270-RDB 
 
Dear Judge Bennett, 
 
 
Edward McCorkle is scheduled to appear before Your Honor for sentencing on 
January 27, 2026, having pleaded guilty to one count of wire fraud conspiracy in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349 and §1343. Mr. McCorkle’s guilty plea was tendered 
pursuant to an agreement under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(B). 
 
Mr. McCorkle respectfully asks the Court to impose a sentence of nine months’ 
active incarceration followed by eighteen months’ electronic monitoring. Undoubtedly, 
this is below the guidelines, but Mr. McCorkle obliges the opportunity to explain why 
this lesser sentence is warranted. Since he was a young child, Mr. McCorkle relied on his 
steadfast self-sufficiency to survive. Mr. McCorkle had to become largely independent at 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 1 of 15

2 
 
nine years old when his father went to prison to serve a sentence of life without the 
possibility of parole. Thereafter, Mr. McCorkle’s juvenile years were defined by 
immaturity and the recklessness of youth. He was guided by corrupting influences on the 
streets and, subsequently, sentenced to five years’ incarceration at age 17 for distribution 
of a controlled dangerous substance with a firearm charge.  
Fortunately, the trouble of Mr. McCorkle’s youth inspired redirection. Mr. 
McCorkle found a new credence in entrepreneurship. Mr. McCorkle realized that the best 
way to guarantee his success was to operate on the right side of the law. Mr. McCorkle 
created several successful small businesses, overcoming his criminal record, his lack of 
mentorship, and his limited education. His self-determination proved prosperous. Mr. 
McCorkle continued on this path of hard work for over a decade. Then, in Spring 2020, 
the onslaught of COVID-19 unraveled Mr. McCorkle’s livelihood. Like many, he was 
terrified of what was to come and how he was going to support the family he had built. 
Here, his self-reliance, that in many ways had proven to be his greatest strength, became 
his greatest weakness. His rudimentary business acumen led him to online assistance that, 
at first, appeared legitimate. He began working with an accountant to obtain government 
sponsored business loans. Mr. McCorkle was too entrenched, and taken by uncertainty, to 
break away when the ominous nature of the scheme started to become apparent. 
Inasmuch, he was complicit in a crime that derailed the otherwise productive and 
fulfilling life he had built. 
This offense was absolutely an error in judgment. It is not a representation of Mr. 
McCorkle as a person. Mr. McCorkle has taken full ownership of his transgressions from 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 2 of 15

3 
 
the second he was contacted by law enforcement; Mr. McCorkle assisted authorities 
immediately in the investigation of his own misconduct. Plea Agreement, page 13. Now, 
Mr. McCorkle respectfully provides this Court with additional information in the hope 
that this allows the Court to get to know Mr. McCorkle as a man beyond his error in this 
case.  
A. The Sentencing Guidelines 
Mr. McCorkle’s sentencing guideline calculations illustrate how a binary system 
fails to fully capture nuance in its’ results. Mr. McCorkle’s sentencing guidelines were a 
near miss of a significantly lower outcome, contingent on two key variables. Mr. 
McCorkle does not suggest that his sentencing guidelines were improperly calculated, but 
rather that comparative calculations provide support for Mr. McCorkle’s humble request 
that he be sentenced below the guidelines.  
Of course, the federal sentencing guidelines are intended to guide judges’ 
discretion, not replace it. The applicable guideline range serves as a “starting point and 
initial benchmark” for the sentencing court to then “determine an appropriate sentence 
upon consideration of all the factors set forth by Congress in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).” U.S. 
SENT’G COMM’N, GUIDELINES MANUAL §3E1.1, p. 3-4 (Nov. 2025) (quoting Gall 
v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 39 (2007). In fact, a sentencing court should consider the 
“widest possible breadth of information” about a defendant to ensure the court is in 
“possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendant’s life and 
characteristics.” See Pepper v. United States, 562 U.S. 476, 488 (2011); see also 
Concepcion v. United States, 597 U.S. 481, 493 (2022). 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 3 of 15

4 
 
First, Mr. McCorkle is compensating heavily for a grievous mistake made as a 
child. Mr. McCorkle has been assigned a criminal history category of II because he was 
convicted of one count of distributing a controlled dangerous substance with a firearm at 
17 years old, in 2005. Inasmuch, the 37-year-old Mr. McCorkle is facing increased 
punishment for the actions of juvenile Mr. McCorkle instead of being afforded the 
recognition of adolescent immaturity that has since been provided throughout criminal 
law. See, e.g., Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 569 (2005) (a “lack of maturity and an 
underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and 
are more understandable among the young.”); Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 68 (2010) 
(“As compared to adults, juveniles . . . . are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative 
influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure; and their characters are not as 
well formed.”) (cleaned up); and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 472 (2012) (juveniles’ 
“immaturity, recklessness, and impetuosity” renders them less culpable than adults). 
“Maturation of brain structure, brain function, and brain connectivity continues 
throughout the early twenties.” Catherine Insel, Stephanie Tabashneck, et al., White 
Paper on the Science of Late Adolescence: A Guide for Judges, Attorneys, and Policy 
Makers (2022), https://clbb.mgh.harvard.edu/white-paper-on-the-science-of-late-
adolescence/.  
Mr. McCorkle’s juvenile offense occurred so long ago that it was close to no 
longer factoring into his sentencing guidelines. Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a 
sentence imposed more than fifteen years prior to the commencement of the instant 
offense is not counted unless the defendant’s incarceration extended into this fifteen-year 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 4 of 15

5 
 
period. U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, GUIDELINES MANUAL §4A1.2(e) (Nov. 2025). This 
time limit recognizes that the predictive capacity of a previous offense on recidivism 
decreases the longer a person goes without recidivating, provides a measure of finality, 
and incentivizes rehabilitation. In a ten-year study, the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau 
of Justice Statistics found that annual arrest rates of released prisoners decrease every 
year after release. U.S. Department of Justice, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 24 
States in 2008: A 10-Year Follow-Up Period (2008-2018) (2021) 
https://bjs.ojp.gov/BJS_PUB/rpr24s0810yfup0818/Web%20content/508%20compliant%
20PDFs. That Mr. McCorkle’s juvenile offense was about to time out of sentencing 
guidelines consideration provides another layer of support for not increasing Mr. 
McCorkle’s current sentence due to his juvenile offense. 
The policy interests of deterring recidivism that may rationalize a sentencing 
increase elsewhere do not rationalize a sentencing increase here. The federal sentencing 
guidelines’ section on criminal history states: 
To protect the public from further crimes of the particular defendant, the 
likelihood of recidivism and future criminal behavior must be considered. 
Repeated criminal behavior is an indicator of a limited likelihood of 
successful rehabilitation.  
 
U.S. SENT’G COMM’N, GUIDELINES MANUAL §3E1.1, p. 361 (Nov. 2025). The 
Sentencing Commission also expresses concerns of “patterns of career criminal 
behavior.” Id. Mr. McCorkle’s juvenile offense does not establish a pattern of career 
criminal behavior or evidence a likelihood of recidivism in the future.  
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 5 of 15

6 
 
Second, Mr. McCorkle’s offense category increased two levels due to the amount 
that loan applications sought, not the actual amount obtained. There is certainly cause to 
structure penalties based on the scale of an attempt. Here, however, Mr. McCorkle simply 
seeks consideration of the fact that he did not calculate the amount of the attempt. Mr. 
McCorkle’s co-conspirator did so. Undoubtedly, Mr. McCorkle reaped the benefits of the 
amount obtained and graciously requests that amount be considered as more reflective of 
Mr. McCorkle’s involvement in this case. 
The following chart illustrates alternative sentencing guideline calculations based 
on the variables discussed above. The first row is the current guidelines. The second row 
is the guidelines if Mr. McCorkle’s juvenile offense was not considered. The third row is 
the guidelines if they were run based on the actual amount of money, not the attempted 
amount. The fourth row is the guidelines if both Mr. McCorkle’s juvenile offense was not 
considered and the guidelines were run based on the actual amount of money. 
Calculation: 
Basis for 
Adjustment: 
Resulting 
Guidelines: 
Average 
Sentence 
Imposed: 
Current Guidelines 
(offense level 18, 
offender level II) 
N/A 
30-37 months 
25 months 
Lesser Offender 
Level 
(offense level 18, 
offender level I) 
Disregards juvenile 
offense 
27-33 months 
18 months 
Lesser Offense Level 
(offense level 16, 
offender level II) 
Accounts for the 
actual quantity of 
harm 
24-30 months 
21 months 
Lesser Offense and 
Offender Level 
(offense level 16, 
offender level I) 
Accounts for actual 
quantity of harm and 
disregards juvenile 
offense 
21-27 months 
14 months 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 6 of 15

7 
 
B. The Offense 
 
COVID closed down most businesses in March 2020. In April 2020, the federal 
government made loans available for companies to help them try to survive the 
unprecedented pandemic. At the time, many aspects of the program were unclear – the 
Small Business Administration was issuing new regulations almost weekly. Mr. 
McCorkle met a person in an online group for business owners. The person, charged as 
Mr. McCorkle’s co-conspirator, offered group members help applying for the new loans. 
Initially, Mr. McCorkle’s co-conspirator had the appearance of legitimacy to Mr. 
McCorkle. The person told Mr. McCorkle that they were an accountant. Mr. McCorkle 
answered the person’s questions honestly and the person filled out and submitted the 
application. The person also directed Mr. McCorkle to a brick-and-mortar office where 
they met in person. 
In May 2020, Mr. McCorkle’s co-conspirator submitted Payment Protection 
Program loan applications to Cross River Bank under Mr. McCorkle’s business names. 
The loan applications were combined for $946,500 total but Mr. McCorkle actually 
obtained $523,700. Mr. McCorkle used funds to retain workers and maintain payroll, to 
make mortgage payments, lease payments, and utility payments, and for maintenance to 
support ongoing business operations, among other things. 
On October 30, 2023, law enforcement executed a federal search warrant at Mr. 
McCorkle’s residence. Mr. McCorkle recalls that he, his partner, and their two young 
children were woken by law enforcement at 5 a.m. and had to go outside in the cold 
while their home was searched. Law enforcement officers read Mr. McCorkle his 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 7 of 15

8 
 
Miranda rights and Mr. McCorkle agreed to speak with them. Plea Agreement, page 13. 
Mr. McCorkle immediately admitted his involvement. Taking ownership is a guiding 
principle to Mr. McCorkle and, in this difficult moment, he demonstrated his character by 
cooperating with the investigation leading to his prosecution. 
C. Mr. McCorkle’s History and Characteristics 
 
Mr. McCorkle’s life has been defined by being a self-starter. Mr. McCorkle, 37, 
was born and raised in Maryland. Mr. McCorkle’s father was incarcerated with a life 
without parole sentence when Mr. McCorkle was nine, leaving Mr. McCorkle and his 
eight siblings without a present father. Mr. McCorkle recalls that this was a difficult and 
traumatic time for him and his family. From that moment on, Mr. McCorkle’s mother was 
in survival mode to support the family. She struggled to navigate the situation herself, let 
alone to guide her young children through the emotional journeys they each faced. Mr. 
McCorkle recalls feeling alienated, even though he had done nothing wrong. While other 
kids got to be innocent, his childhood was marred by the seriousness of this trauma.  
From this background, Mr. McCorkle struggled finding his way and transitioning 
into early adulthood. As a juvenile, Mr. McCorkle learned to provide for himself so his 
mother had one less mouth to feed. Deprived of familial influences, Mr. McCorkle was 
guided by young adults on the streets. At age 17, Mr. McCorkle was convicted of 
possession and distribution of a controlled dangerous substance. Mr. McCorkle was 
sentenced to five years’ incarceration at Maryland Correctional Training Center. 
Mr. McCorkle never fit in with the younger guys in prison. The older inmates were 
always surprised when they learned how young he was and said they wish they could be 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 8 of 15

9 
 
his age again. Mr. McCorkle asked them what they would do differently if they were his 
age. He knew he did not want to become an old inmate wishing he was young again. Mr. 
McCorkle realized he needed to create the change he wanted to see in his life: being 
financially independent without breaking the law or hurting anyone.  
In the years following his release, Mr. McCorkle created three businesses 
managing properties, fixing up houses, and operating a fleet of commercial trucks 
carrying daily shipments in and out of the Port of Baltimore. Mr. McCorkle created these 
businesses to support himself and his family and also to provide housing and work 
opportunities for people like himself who struggled due to their afflicting circumstances.  
Mr. McCorkle, like many, suffered financially in Spring 2020. Mr. McCorkle 
estimates 80% of his revenue came from his commercial trucking business, which was 
devastatingly impacted by COVID-related closures. While Mr. McCorkle fully 
acknowledges his wrongdoing, it is important to note that the money did not go towards a 
lavish lifestyle or luxury goods. Like many struggling small business owners, Mr. 
McCorkle was trying to support his family and keep his businesses afloat during a time of 
indeterminate shutdown.  
Mr. McCorkle has demonstrated acceptance of responsibility since the moment he 
was confronted. He has not made excuses.  
Mr. McCorkle has utilized this time to reflect on how he became involved in the 
underlying offense and how to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. Mr. McCorkle 
is participating in weekly mental health treatment while on pretrial release. Mr. McCorkle 
realizes that his relentless self-sufficiency and limited education is part of what led to his 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 9 of 15

10 
 
involvement in the underlying offense. Overworked, overwhelmed, and under-educated, 
Mr. McCorkle relied on financial advice from a stranger found online. Mr. McCorkle has 
since learned that although he started his businesses on his own, due to his specific 
learning disorder he can no longer manage them effectively without advanced 
professional assistance.  
Earlier this year, Mr. McCorkle began contracting professionals at Tax Recovery 
Service in Towson, Maryland, to ensure that his businesses are in full compliance with all 
state and federal regulations. Mr. McCorkle notes that his advisers at Tax Recovery 
Service not only work with him to navigate the complexities of filing for multiple 
businesses with different structures and schedules, but they encourage Mr. McCorkle to 
sit with them while they work and educate him in the process. The importance of this 
guidance to Mr. McCorkle cannot be overstated. Mr. McCorkle floundered to his co-
conspirator’s illicit guidance because of Mr. McCorkle’s deficient understanding of 
business financing regulations. Now, Tax Recovery Service is not only helping Mr. 
McCorkle learn what needs to be done for government compliance, but teaching him why 
things need to be done a certain way and how to ensure his compliance.  
In addition to his professional endeavors, Mr. McCorkle has built a beautiful 
family. Mr. McCorkle is in a loving relationship with Dontraya Ammons, who is 
employed at an adult learning center. They have two children, Tiger, age 6, and Akeelah, 
age 4. The family resides together in Owings Mills. Mr. McCorkle also has a son, 
Tommy, age 15, who lives out of state. Mr. McCorkle has been proud to involve his 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 10 of 15

11 
 
eldest son in his work: teaching him how the equipment operates, showing him the value 
of hard work, and involving him in the process of maintaining the family businesses.  
Mr. McCorkle is deeply remorseful for committing an offense that has derailed his 
life and hurt his loved ones, and he plans to focus his energy while incarcerated on 
preparing for a brighter future.  
D. Mr. McCorkle’s Plans for the Future 
 
Mr. McCorkle has reflected on his error over the past two years that Mr. McCorkle 
has been facing this charge. In a time of economic uncertainty and desperation, Mr. 
McCorkle broke the law in an effort to provide for his family and his businesses. He now 
understands that his actions have had the opposite effect. Not only will Mr. McCorkle’s 
ability to lead his businesses and financially support his family be impacted by his 
sentence in this case, but Mr. McCorkle faces time away from his children for the first 
time in their lives. As his own father was incarcerated when he was nine years old, Mr. 
McCorkle’s primary motivation is minimizing the repercussions his children face due to 
his actions. 
Mr. McCorkle looks forward to a future where he can return to the mission of his 
work, providing for family and community.  
E. The Appropriate Sentence 
 
Mr. McCorkle, humbly and respectfully, requests that this Court impose a sentence 
of nine months’ incarceration following by eighteen months’ electronic monitoring. 
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C § 3553(a), the Court is to impose a sentence that is “sufficient, but 
not greater than necessary” to accomplish the statutory purposes of sentencing: just 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 11 of 15

12 
 
punishment, specific and general deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. 
Here, that sentence is nine months’ incarceration with eighteen months’ electronic 
monitoring.  
1. Just punishment 
Mr. McCorkle’s offense cannot be excused. Mr. McCorkle fully understands that 
wire fraud conspiracy is a serious crime, but Mr. McCorkle’s offense is not representative 
of him as a whole person. Mr. McCorkle hopes to be seen by the life he has led since his 
offense. Even before his arrest, Mr. McCorkle made regular repayments on the EIDL 
loans. As previously mentioned, Mr. McCorkle has been cooperative at every step of his 
investigation. Mr. McCorkle became aware of the investigation on October 30, 2023, and 
has vigilantly followed all laws since. A sentence of nine months’ incarceration followed 
by eighteen months’ electronic monitoring is just punishment given Mr. McCorkle’s role 
in the underlying offense and his cooperation in the investigation thereof. 
2. Specific and general deterrence 
The specific deterrent intention of this prosecution will manifest through the 
devastating consequences Mr. McCorkle will face while undergoing incarceration. This 
will be his first time away from his three children. Mr. McCorkle recognizes that, through 
his actions, he has also punished his partner and children by depriving them of his 
presence and support and is determined not to let them down again. Mr. McCorkle 
recognizes, based in part on his own turbulent upbringing, the negative impacts that 
growing up without a fully present father can have on a young person’s mental health and 
development. Mr. McCorkle’s prison sentence does not need to extend beyond nine 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 12 of 15

13 
 
months’ incarceration with eighteen months’ electronic monitoring to deter him from 
breaking the law again – his remorse and desire to make amends for his actions and 
absence have already done so. 
Research supports the contention that lengthier prison sentences do not result in 
lower recidivism. For example, the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research 
has compiled data from a broad range of research on incarceration, policing and crime 
deterrence to conclude that: “(1) The marginal deterrent effect of increasing lengthy 
prison sentences is modest at best; and (2) imprisonment, compared with noncustodial 
sanctions such as probation, does not prevent reoffending and often has a criminogenic 
effect on those who are imprisoned.” Daniel Webster et al., Reducing Violence and 
Building Trust: Data to Guide Enforcement of Gun Laws in Baltimore, Johns Hopkins 
Bloomberg School of Public Health, Center for Gun Policy and Research, at 24 (2014)). 
This tracks findings from other criminological research that severity increases are 
“seldom if ever crime preventatives.” Michael Tonry, Purposes and Functions of 
Sentencing, 34 Crime & Just. 1, 29 (2006). In fact, “prison can exacerbate, not reduce, 
recidivism.” Nat’l Institute of Justice, Five Things About Deterrence (Jun. 5, 2016).1 
3. Protection of the public 
Mr. McCorkle has been released on his personal recognizance with Pretrial 
Services Supervision since September 15, 2025, without incident. Mr. McCorkle has 
 
1 https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/five-things-about-deterrence 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 13 of 15

14 
 
shown that he is not a risk to the public and that he is more than amenable to complying 
with court conditions. 
4. Rehabilitation 
Mr. McCorkle is responsive to rehabilitative opportunities. Mr. McCorkle has 
already begun participating in mental health treatment while on pretrial release. He 
remains a caregiver with a strong work ethic. With the right support, Mr. McCorkle can 
realize his potential to return to a fulfilling, productive, and law-abiding life. Mr. 
McCorkle has strong support, already, from his family. He is well-suited to thrive with 
additional support and direction from the U.S. Probation Office. 
F. Conclusion 
 
To satisfy the directive of § 3553(a), for the reasons explained herein and at the 
upcoming sentencing hearing, I respectfully request that the Court sentence Mr. 
McCorkle to nine months’ incarceration with eighteen months’ electronic monitoring. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted,  
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
___/s/Matthew C. Zernhelt _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Matthew Zernhelt 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney number: 11613 
Zernhelt Law LLC  
100 West Road, Suite 204 
Towson, MD 21204 
Ph.: (443) 690-0870  
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 14 of 15

15 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this January 9, 2026, a copy of the foregoing was served 
electronically by ECF to: Office of the United States Attorney.  
 
___/s/Matthew C. Zernhelt _ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Matthew Zernhelt 
 
 
Case 1:25-cr-00270-RDB     Document 19     Filed 01/08/26     Page 15 of 15

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mdd.590048.19.0.pdf

Size

303,857 bytes

SHA-256

cbd4bd2ffb833e28640ed81e1b1b22a5b3634fb9ce6ed996dfe5d4ef67d93c02

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mdd.590048.19.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)