Sentencing Memorandum of Defendant Tamir Pratt — United States v. Tamir Pratt (S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

Full text

1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
Criminal Action No. 2:23-cr-00038 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TAMIR PRATT, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT TAMIR PRATT 
 
 
Now comes the defendant, Tamir Pratt, by his undersigned counsel and files this sentencing 
memorandum for consideration of the Court in sentencing the defendant.  
I. 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Factors for Consideration 
With a criminal history category of I and an adjusted offense level of eight, the advisory 
guideline imprisonment range set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) is a term 
of zero month to six months with Zone A sentencing options. PSR ¶ 62. Mr. Pratt respectfully 
requests the Court impose a within -Guidelines sentence of probation and relies upon the following 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors in support of a non-custodial sentence.  
 
 
A. 
Character and History of the Defendant 
 
Tamir Pratt is 21 years old and has been a resident of Charleston, West Virginia for 
approximately two years. Mr. Pratt is in a relationship with Zaqsia Sayles and the two have two 
children together. Mr. Pratt’s older son, Amir Pratt is just over a year old, and Amari Pratt was 
born in July of this year. Mr. Pratt is currently employed full-time at REM West Virginia as a 
direct support professional (caregiver). A reference letter from his program director is provided 
along with this memorandum, stating that Mr. Pratt is a good employee and that they hope to keep 

 
2 
him for years to come. Mr. Pratt has a consistent history of employment with previous jobs at 
Express Employment Professionals and McDonalds. Additionally, Mr. Pratt’s only previous 
criminal history is a juvenile matter.  
 
Mr. Pratt was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and had a difficult childhood. When Mr. 
Pratt was a small child, his mother suffered a crippling stroke that left her unable to care for him 
and his siblings. Mr. Pratt was in the foster system for a short time until he went to live with his 
grandmother who raised him. Mr. Pratt’s father was in and out of prison during his childhood and 
did not provide much support. Mr. Pratt’s mother passed away from cancer when he was around 
thirteen years old. Mr. Pratt completed school only through the ninth grade. Mr. Pratt recently 
applied to the Charleston Job Corps Center in order to obtain his GED and complete a carpentry 
certification.  
Other than the current criminal case, Mr. Pratt lives a fairly normal life. He goes to work 
Monday through Friday and spends the rest of his time with his two young children. Should Mr. 
Pratt be sentenced to time incarcerated it would undoubtedly have a very negative effect on his 
young children. “Incarceration 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)(quoting collection of literature). “For children 
under the age of five, both lack of parent-child bonding and disruption of an existing bond can 
create difficulties in cognitive and language development as well as in forming relationships and 
regulating emotions later in life.” United States v. G.L., 305 F.R.D. 47, 50 (E.D.N.Y. 
2015)(quoting Sarah Abramowicz, Beyond Family Law, 63 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 293, 321 (2012). 
Both of Mr. Pratt’s children are under 18 months of age and any time spent away from them would 
have a very negative impact on the children and their relationship with Mr. Pratt, as pointed out 

 
3 
by the literature.  
 
B. 
Nature of the Offense 
 
 Prior to COVID-19, Mr. Pratt was employed through a Temp Agency. Mr. Pratt had a job 
at the beginning of the pandemic through the Temp Agency, but the project he was working on 
eventually ended. Mr. Pratt remained enrolled at the Temp Agency, but after the pandemic began 
and his last job ended, he never received another call for employment opportunities. There is likely 
a correlation between Mr. Pratt not receiving any further employment opportunities and the 
shutdown of the country due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. It was around this time 
that Mr. Pratt started seeing social media posts about “free money” and quick and easy loan 
qualifications. Mr. Pratt saw these posts and articles everywhere, and it seemed as though everyone 
was receiving a loan.  
In April of 2021, Mr. Pratt saw an Instagram story from an unknown person whose 
username was “4dripzz” that offered to complete the loan application for Mr. Pratt in exchange for 
part of the money that was received. Mr. Pratt provided this account with his personal information 
and “4drippz” filled out the loan application. Mr. Pratt signed off on this false information, 
provided a picture and his identification and the loan was approved. Once the loan was approved, 
$20,832 was placed into Mr. Pratt’s account. Mr. Pratt spent $4,983.43 of the loan he received. It 
is important to note that at the time Mr. Pratt applied for his PPP loan, on April 24, 2021, he was 
only eighteen years old. As discussed above, Mr. Pratt had only completed the 9th grade as well. 
After receiving the loan, Mr. Pratt was notified by the bank they were freezing his account to 
investigate his loan. Mr. Pratt told the bank that he would like for them to send the remaining loan 
proceeds back to the lender. Mr. Pratt did not submit any follow up requests to the SBA to forgive 
the PPP loan. When investigators first met with Mr. Pratt, he was completely transparent and 

 
4 
forthcoming about his involvement. Mr. Pratt is ashamed of his conduct and intends to fully pay 
back the PPP loan funding.  
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 not aware of any other defendants in this district who have 
received a term of imprisonment who have been sentenced for similar conduct. Mr. Pratt’s half-
brother, Calvin Butler, was sentenced before this Court to five years of probation with the first six 
months to be served on home detention. See United States v. Calvin Butler, 2:22-cr-0016 (S.D. 
W.Va. May 18, 2023) (Goodwin, J.). Mr. Butler’s case is almost identical to Mr. Pratt’s, with the 
largest differences being Mr. Pratt spent less of the loan money he received, and Mr. Butler’s 
advisory guideline range was 6 to 12 months. According to Court documents, Malik Breckenridge 
fraudulently obtained $41,666 in PPP loans – roughly double Mr. Pratt’s loss amount – and 
received five years of probation.1 See United States v. Malik Breckenridge, Case No. 2:22-cr-
00084 (S.D. W.Va. Nov. 17, 2022) (Berger, J.). Alexis Ransom was sentenced for a loss amount 
of $42,250 and received a sentence of five years of probation.2 See United States v. Alexis Ransom, 
2:22-cr-00122 (S.D. W.Va. Feb. 7, 2023) (Faber, J.). Tiffany Bowlin was also sentenced to five 
years of probation, including four months of home confinement, for her PPP loan loss of $20,833. 
See United States v. Tiffany Bowlin, 2:22-cr-00205 (S.D. W.Va. May 10, 2023)3 (Copenhaver, J.). 
Finally, in another case in front of this Court, Aalik Wilsher was sentenced to three years of 
probation and had a restitution amount of $20,459.33. See United States v. Aalik Wilsher, 2:23-cr-
00051 (S.D. W.Va. August 9, 2023) (Goodwin, J.).  
 
1 Breckenridge’s advisory guideline range was 8 to 14 months in Zone B. 
2 Ransom’s advisory guideline range was 8 to 14 months in Zone B. 
3 Bowlin’s advisory guideline range was 4 to 10 months in Zone B. 

 
5 
 
D. 
Kinds of Sentences and Ranges Established by the Guidelines and Need for 
the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote Respect for the 
Law, and Provide Just Punishment. 
 
 
Mr. Pratt has a total offense level of 8 and is in Criminal History Category I, yielding an 
advisory guideline sentencing of zero to six months. The applicable guideline range is in Zone A 
of the Sentencing Table and therefore does not require a sentence of imprisonment unless such a 
term is expressly required.  U.S.S.G. § 5C1.1(b). In the present case there is no mandatory 
minimum sentence of imprisonment required. Mr. Pratt has a stable job and young family that he 
works hard to support. Mr. Pratt was also completely forthcoming with the authorities from the 
onset of this matter being investigated. Mr. Pratt is requesting a sentence of probation in this 
matter. The United States Supreme Court has previously acknowledged that probation is a serious 
sentence. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38,48 (2007) (“Offenders on probation are 
nonetheless subject to several standard conditions that substantially restrict their liberty.”); United 
States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112, 119 (2001) (“Inherent in the very nature of probation is that 
probationers do not enjoy the absolute liberty to which every citizen is entitled.” (quoting Griffin 
v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 868, 874 (1987))). Mr. Pratt is a young man who will now be saddled with 
a felony for the rest of his life. An alternative sentence would permit Mr. Pratt to continue working 
and be self-supporting rather than a burden on taxpayers. Such a sentence could also sufficiently 
reflect the seriousness of Mr. Pratt’s crime, constitute just punishment, protect public safety, and 
serve as an effective deterrent. See Gall, 552 U.S. 38.  
 
II. 
Objections to the Presentence Report 
 
Defendant only has two objections to the PSR.4 The first objection is to the inclusion of 
 
4 Counsel did not file written objections to the PSR because the information counsel is objecting to was only 

 
6 
interest to Mr. Pratt’s restitution as set out in paragraphs 21 and 24 of the PSR. Mr. Pratt would 
request this Court, pursuant to 188 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(3), waive the collection of any statutory post-
judgment interest on the restitution obligation in view of the defendant’s current financial status. 
Mr. Pratt currently earns $13.50 an hour and has two children under two years old that he supports.  
 
Defendant’s second objection is to the inclusion of the $2,500 processing fee paid to 
Prestamos CDFI, LLC as part of his restitution that is addressed in paragraph 21 and 24 of the 
PSR. After Mr. Pratt’s account was frozen, he requested Capital One to return all of the remaining 
funds to the lender. However, this was not done, and the money remained frozen in the account. 
When counsel for the defendant requested AUSA Storage to look into this matter, AUSA Storage 
informed counsel for the defendant that it appeared that the money had not been returned because 
the Department of Justice out of Washington, D.C. may be investigating Prestamos CDFI, LLC. 
According to an email sent by AUSA Storage, there have been no federal charges brought against 
Prestamos CDFI, LLC at this time. However, counsel for the defendant thinks it is important to 
point out that Mr. Pratt did not receive any direct benefit from the $2,500 processing fee paid to 
Prestamos CDFI, LLC. Upon review of the documents that were submitted in this case, it is 
surprising that any lending institution approved the loan in this matter. Mr. Pratt takes full 
responsibility for his actions in this case. However, should the United States wish to recover the 
$2,500 processing fees that were paid to lenders, counsel for the defendant believes the appropriate 
route may be to scrutinize the lending institutions that received the benefit of these payments.  
Without the addition of any interest or the processing fee, Mr. Pratt’s restitution amount would be 
$4,983.43.  
 
provided by the Government two days prior to the due date of the Final PSR. Counsel for the defendant has spoken 
with United States Probation as well as AUSA Storage regarding this matter. Counsel for the defendant does not 
believe additional briefing will be required to address these issues, but should the Court wish for additional briefing, 
Counsel for the Defendant will prepare a motion to continue the sentencing hearing.  

 
7 
 
III. 
Time for Sentencing Hearing 
The defendant does not currently intend to call any witnesses and believes sentencing can 
likely be concluded in one hour.  
 
III. 
Conclusion 
 
For all the reasons set forth above, the defendant respectfully requests the Court to sentence 
Mr. Pratt to a term of probation or any alternative sentence that this Court deems sufficient to 
achieve the statutory sentencing purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  
 
 
 
 
 
 
TAMIR PRATT, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Counsel, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Paul E. Stroebel                             
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul E. Stroebel, Esquire (WV BAR 13269) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stroebel & Stroebel, P.L.L.C. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Post Office Box 2582 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Charleston, West Virginia  25329-2582 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
8 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
Criminal Action No. 2:23-cr-00038 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TAMIR PRATT, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I, PAUL E. STROEBEL, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 
“Defendant Tamir Pratt’s Sentencing Memorandum” has been served upon all counsel of record 
this 21st day September, 2023, to the following: 
 
Jonathan Storage, Esquire 
Assistant United States Attorney 
         300 Virginia Street E.; Suite 4000 
Charleston, WV  25301 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/Paul E. Stroebel                        
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Paul E. Stroebel, Esquire

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.236441.27.0.pdf

Size

218,439 bytes

SHA-256

a9613ec7638d78764b461ae4a77bd86ee9f33b053bd50319d3118b16272a53d5

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.236441.27.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)