Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Krista Marie Menchaca (S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:25-cr-00068 · Doc. 20 · 2025-08-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
CHARLESTON DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 2:25-cr-00068 
                                                                                                           
KRISTA MARIE MENCHACA 
 
 
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
 
Comes now the defendant, Krista Marie Menchaca, by Assistant Federal 
Public Defender Emily L. Szopinski, and submits this memorandum outlining the 
various 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors for the Court’s consideration at her upcoming 
sentencing hearing.  For the reasons set forth below, Ms. Menchaca requests a 
sentence of probation.   
I. 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors for Consideration 
With a criminal history category of I and a Total Offense Level of 8, the 
advisory guideline range set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) 
recommends a term of imprisonment between zero and six months with Zone A 
sentencing options.  PSR ¶ 57.  Ms. Menchaca respectfully requests the Court impose 
a within-Guidelines sentence of two years of probation and relies upon the following 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in support of a non-custodial sentence. 
A. The nature and circumstances of the offense. 
Like many Americans, the COVID-19 pandemic was a challenging time for Ms. 
Menchaca.  Ms. Menchaca was a single parent to two young children.  She had 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 50

2 
 
recently moved to Michigan with her mother and daughter to get away from an ex-
boyfriend.  While in Michigan, she was working as a Certified Nurse Assistant 
(“CNA”).  Someone that she was friends with through work approached her about 
applying for a PPP loan and encouraged her to apply because it was “very, very, very 
popular.”  ¶ 11.  At the time, it was common for people to boast about the “free” money 
that they had received from the Government in the form of PPP loans.1 
Ms. Menchaca’s co-worker connected her with someone who would fill out the 
PPP application on her behalf.  In return, Ms. Menchaca would provide her liaison 
with $3,000 of the proceeds of the loan.  Communicating through the phone, Ms. 
Menchaca provided that person with her driver’s license and bank account 
information.  The third party filled out the application, including a fraudulent IRS 
Form 1040, and presented it to Ms. Menchaca for her signature.  At this point, Ms. 
Menchaca decided not to apply for the PPP loan and tried to back out of the 
arrangement.  She told the third party of her intentions not to go through with it.  
Instead, the third party falsified Ms. Menchaca’s signature and submitted the 
application on her behalf. 
At the time, Ms. Menchaca was pregnant with her second daughter.  She 
moved back to West Virginia in July 2021 and attempted to get a job.  Because she 
was approximately 6 months pregnant, finding employment was proving impossible 
 
1 See, e.g., Are PPP Loan Companies Legit? PPP Loans Are Being Aggressively (And I Suspect 
Deceptively) Marketed, Medium (Mar. 23, 2021), available at https://medium.com/web-design-
web-developer-magazine/are-ppploan-companies-legit-ppp-loans-are-being-aggressively-
and-i-suspect-deceptively-marketed-2fa99e7ec6fb. 
 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 51

3 
 
and no one would hire her.  She was also in and out of the hospital with complications 
from her pregnancy.  She had always worked, so Ms. Menchaca found herself in a 
new situation and a scary one: she was the sole caretaker to her oldest daughter and 
had a new baby on the way, and she had no source of income.  When she checked her 
account balance and noticed that she had received $19,395, she realized that the 
person from Michigan must have submitted the PPP loan on her behalf.   
Notably, Ms. Menchaca did not spend the $19,395 PPP loan money frivolously.  
Instead, she spent the proceeds to care of herself, her daughter, and the baby on the 
way.  She also sent $3,000 to the person who filled out the application.  Now, Ms. 
Menchaca will be working to pay back the $19,395 that she used to keep herself and 
her children afloat during a trying time.2     
B. The history and characteristics of the defendant. 
Ms. Menchaca was born in Marquette, Michigan.  Her parents divorced when 
she was only three years old, and she primarily resided with her mother in West 
Virginia throughout her childhood.  She grew up alongside three siblings.  She 
maintained a good relationship with her father and spent summers and holidays with 
him. 
Ms. Menchaca graduated from Capital High School in Charleston, West 
Virginia in 2011.  In 2012, Ms. Menchaca received her Certified Nursing Assistant 
 
2 Notably, nearly three-quarters of PPP funds “flowed to the top fifth of household income.” 
See David Autor et al., The $800 Billion Paycheck Protection Program: Where Did the Money 
Go and Why Did It Go There?, Journal of Economic Perspectives (Spring 2022), available at  
https://blueprintcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/jep.36.2.55.pdf. 
 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 52

4 
 
license.  As a teenager, Ms. Menchaca worked part-time jobs at Wendy’s and 
McDonalds.  Since receiving her CNA license, Ms. Menchaca has held steady 
employment as a CNA at various hospitals and health care facilities.   
In 2024, Ms. Menchaca began taking classes at Bridge Valley Community and 
Technical College to become a radiology technician.  She completed her first year of 
prerequisite courses in May 2025.  She is currently delaying her second year of 
schooling as she is pregnant and unable to complete the clinical practicums necessary 
for her degree while pregnant due to the radiation exposure.  Because the program is 
only offered in the fall, she plans to resume her course of study in Fall 2026 and 
expects to graduate in Spring 2027.  For the past year, Ms. Menchaca has been 
working full-time while attending school. 
 Ms. Menchaca has been a single mother of her eight-year-old and three-year 
old children for their entire lives.  She is currently pregnant and expecting her third 
child in November 2025.  Not only has she been the sole caregiver to her children, but 
she has also been the primary financial support for her children.  Notably, 
“[i]ncarceration of a parent normally causes major negative economic, social, and 
psychological consequences to the child, and may have life-long [adverse] 
repercussions.” United States v. G.L., 305 F.R.D. 47, 50 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (collecting 
literature). If Ms. Menchaca is given a custodial sentence, her children are likely to 
“suffer developmental harm . . . in the form of behavioral and educational difficulties” 
as a result of her absence, Sarah Abramowicz, Beyond Family Law, 63 Case W. Res. 
L. Rev. 293, 321 (2012), along with a heightened risk of “diminished life chances and 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 53

5 
 
criminal involvement.” Bruce Western & Becky Pettit, Incarceration and Social 
Inequality, Daedalus, Summer 2010, at 16. 
Ms. Menchaca is a caring mother and a hard worker.  Since she has been on 
bond in this case, Ms. Menchaca has continued to demonstrate her willingness and 
ability to abide by the law, maintain steady employment, and comply with all 
conditions set forth by the probation office.  Unlike a sentence of imprisonment, a 
probationary sentence would allow Ms. Menchaca to continue earning money towards 
her restitution obligation which she is eager to repay.  She has a demonstrated work 
ethic and employment history and there is no doubt that she will continue to be a 
productive member of society.    
C. The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty 
of similar conduct. 
To date, the undersigned is aware of at least 11 defendants in this district who 
have been sentenced for similar conduct.  Of those 11 defendants, two had loss 
amounts that were double that of Ms. Menchaca’s, and the other nine had comparable 
loss amounts.  Each of those 11 defendants was sentenced to a term of probation.  See 
United States v. Malik Breckenridge, Case No. 2:22-cr-00084 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 17, 
2022) (Berger, J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of five years of probation with a 
total loss amount of $41,666); United States v. Alexis Ransom, Case No. 2:22-cr-00122 
(S.D. W.Va. Feb. 7, 2023) (Faber, J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of five years of 
probation with a total loss amount of $42,250); United States v. Tiffany Bowlin, Case 
No. 2:22-cr-00205 (S.D. W.Va. May 4, 2023) (Copenhaver, J.) (sentencing defendant 
to a term of five years of probation with a total loss amount of $20,833); United States 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 54

6 
 
v. Calvin Butler, Case No. 2:22-cr-00161 (S.D. W. Va. May 18, 2023) (Goodwin, J.) 
(sentencing defendant to a term of five years of probation with a total loss amount of 
$18,540); United States v. Aalik Wilsher, Case No. 2:23-cr-00051 (S.D. W. Va. Aug. 8, 
2023) (Goodwin, J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of three years of probation with 
a total loss amount of $20,459); United States v. Daniel Satow, Case No. 2:23-cr-00056 
(S.D. W. Va. Aug. 10, 2023) (Johnston, C.J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of five 
years of probation with a total loss amount of $21,283); United States v. Tamir Pratt, 
Case No. 2:23-cr-00038 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 28, 2023) (Goodwin, J.) (sentencing 
defendant to a term of two years of probation with a loss amount of $20,832), United 
States v. Imeesha Bradley, Case No. 2:23-cr-00112 (S.D. W. Va. Jan. 19, 2024) (Faber, 
J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of five years of probation with a loss amount of 
$18,703); United States v. Sean Boyd,  Case No. 2:23-cr-00123 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 22, 
2022) (Copenhaver, J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of five years’ probation with 
a loss amount of $23,817); United States v. Jessica Nutter, Case No. 2:24:-cr-00081 
(S.D. W. Va. Dec. 4, 2024) (Copenhaver, J.) (sentencing defendant to a term of five 
years of probation with a loss amount of $25,830); United States v. Anna Omar, Case 
No. 1:24-cr-00036 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 14, 2025) (Faber, J.) (sentencing defendant to a 
term of five years of probation with a loss amount of $23,410). 
D. The need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the 
offense, promote respect for the law, and provide just 
punishment. 
 
In outlining the duties of the United States Sentencing Commission, Congress 
made it clear that the Commission “shall insure that the guidelines reflect the general 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 55

7 
 
appropriateness of imposing a sentence other than imprisonment in cases in which 
the defendant is a first offender who has not been convicted of a crime of violence or 
an otherwise serious offense.”  28 U.S.C. § 994.   Ms. Menchaca’s only criminal history 
is a single instance of possessing marijuana—an offense for which she promptly pled 
guilty.  As a person with almost no criminal history who has spent no time in jail, she 
has a very low risk of recidivism.  See Report of U.S.S.C. (May 2004) “Recidivism and 
the ‘First Offender’” (“The analysis [of empirical data on re-offending] delineates 
recidivism risk for offenders with minimal prior criminal history and shows that the 
risk is lowest for offenders with the least experience in the criminal justice system.”).   
A sentence of probation adequately reflects the seriousness of Ms. Menchaca’s 
conduct and provides just punishment for her offense. As the Supreme Court has 
recognized, a sentence of probation is “a substantial restriction of freedom.” Gall v. 
United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48 (2007).  Ms. Menchaca will be closely monitored by the 
Probation Office for the entirety of her probationary term, and she is very aware that 
if she were to violate any term of probation, the Court could re-sentence her to a term 
of imprisonment within or above her suggested guideline range. 
E. The kinds of sentences available and the sentencing 
guideline range. 
 
Ms. Menchaca’s sentencing guideline range is between 0 and 6 months of 
imprisonment.  The proposed sentence of probation falls within that guideline range.  
Above all, a sentence of probation will allow Ms. Menchaca to continue working and 
pay her restitution obligations while remaining a dedicated and present parent to her 
three children. 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 56

8 
 
II. 
Conclusion 
For the forgoing reasons, Ms. Menchaca submits that a probationary sentence 
is sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the statutory sentencing 
purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 
III. 
Time Needed for Sentencing 
Ms. Menchaca does not anticipate calling any witnesses to testify at the 
upcoming sentencing hearing and believes the hearing will last approximately thirty 
minutes. 
Date: August 8, 2025. 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KRISTA MENCHACA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Counsel 
 
WESLEY P. PAGE 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
 
s/Emily L. Szopinski    ________________                
Emily L. Szopinski, WV Bar No. 14231 
Assistant Federal Public Defender 
Office of the Federal Public Defender 
300 Virginia Street, East, Room 3400 
Charleston, WV 25301 
Telephone: (304) 347-3350 
Facsimile: (304) 347-3356 
E-mail: Emily_Szopinski@fd.org  
 
Case 2:25-cr-00068     Document 20     Filed 08/08/25     Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 57

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.241386.20.0.pdf

Size

139,155 bytes

SHA-256

c77af9649bfe63fa616015ed9c3645d48b8b1b0780fd11c67701565cde32aa9f

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.241386.20.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)