Court filing
Sentencing Hearing Transcript — US v. Price
Filed January 13, 2022 in U.S. v. Price; one of 7 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-01-13 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division · No. 4:20-cr-00522 · Doc. 118 · 2022-01-13 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
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
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
_ _ _
THE HONORABLE VANESSA D. GILMORE, JUDGE PRESIDING
___________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
No. 4:20-cr-00522-1
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEE E. PRICE, III,
Defendant.
___________________________________________________________
SENTENCING HEARING
OFFICIAL REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Houston, Texas
November 29, 2021
___________________________________________________________
APPEARANCES:
For the Plaintiff:
Matthew G. Grisier
Andrew Tyler
For the Defendant:
Thomas S. Berg
Reported by:
Nichole Forrest, RDR, CRR, CRC
Official Court Reporter
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
nichole_forrest@txs.uscourts.gov
Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography. Transcript
produced by Reporter on computer.
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 1 of 28
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
09:36:26
09:36:28
09:36:28
09:36:28
09:36:28
10:38:37
10:38:38
10:38:47
10:38:51
10:38:54
10:38:54
10:38:57
10:38:58
10:39:00
10:39:01
10:39:05
10:39:06
10:39:09
10:39:12
10:39:13
10:39:15
10:39:19
10:39:24
10:39:26
10:39:28
10:39:29
2
PROCEEDINGS
___________________________________________________________
(The following proceedings held in open court.)
* * *
THE COURT: United States of America versus
Lee Price. For the United States?
Who is here for the United States?
MR. GRISIER: Matthew Grisier with Andrew
Tyler.
THE COURT: Who did you say?
MR. GRISIER: I apologize, Your Honor.
Matthew Grisier for the United --
THE COURT: Grisier?
MR. GRISIER: Yes. With me is co-counsel,
Andrew Tyler.
THE COURT: Tyler? All right.
For the defendant, please?
MR. BERG: Tom Berg.
THE COURT: Mr. Berg.
We're here this morning for sentencing.
Mr. Grisier, has the United States had a
chance to review the presentence investigation report and
addendum to that report?
MR. GRISIER: Yes, we had.
THE COURT: Mr. Berg, did you and your
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 2 of 28
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
10:39:30
10:39:32
10:39:35
10:39:36
10:39:37
10:39:41
10:39:43
10:39:45
10:39:48
10:39:51
10:39:56
10:39:57
10:40:00
10:40:06
10:40:12
10:40:16
10:40:17
10:40:19
10:40:27
10:40:52
10:40:55
10:41:00
10:41:01
10:41:02
10:41:04
3
client get a chance to review the presentence
investigation, as well as the addendum to that report?
MR. BERG: We did.
THE COURT: Then presentence investigation
and addendum will be placed into the record under seal.
In the event there is any appeal of this case, the only
portion that will not be disclosed will be that portion
that contains a sentencing recommendation from the
probation department to the Court.
There were objections by the United States
and by the defense.
Let me turn first to the government's
objection. The government essentially objects to the
calculation, basically the base-offense-level issue, which
I've looked at and looked at again with the probation
department.
And I think that the probation department
got it right. When we have to go back and look at 2B1.1
in calculating it, it comes out to be a 27.
I guess it's y'all's position you think it
should be 28. We should use A and not B?
MR. GRISIER: That's correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Have you looked at it again
since you looked at the addendum?
MR. GRISIER: I have, Your Honor, as has
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 3 of 28
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
10:41:05
10:41:09
10:41:15
10:41:15
10:41:19
10:41:24
10:41:25
10:41:28
10:41:32
10:41:35
10:41:40
10:41:43
10:41:45
10:41:50
10:41:51
10:41:52
10:41:57
10:41:59
10:42:02
10:42:02
10:42:04
10:42:07
10:42:09
10:42:12
10:42:15
4
co-counsel. Representation that I have is that
essentially what we did was calculate using
2S1.1(a)(1)(A) --
THE COURT: I have to go back to B; to
B1.1. It refers me back. I have to look at 2B1.1; then I
have to look at B.
MR. GRISIER: It's the 2S1.1(a)(2) that
refers back to 2B1.1. We're looking at 2S1.1(a)(1).
THE COURT: I know. But then you've got a
1957. I have to go back to 2B1.1. You started out as 18
USC Section 1957.
Anyway, the government's objection is
overruled. I think that it's a 27 and not a 28.
MR. GRISIER: Understood.
THE COURT: I think it's appropriately
calculated by the probation at the lower number.
I think that's the only objection of yours
that you had that hasn't been addressed by the addendum.
Is that correct?
MR. GRISIER: That is correct, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then let me go to the
defendant's objection.
Mr. Berg, your objections are essentially
that you don't think that he should get the specific
offense characteristic in paragraph 50 for the more than
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 4 of 28
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
10:42:19
10:42:22
10:42:25
10:42:30
10:42:33
10:42:34
10:42:36
10:42:38
10:42:39
10:42:41
10:42:45
10:42:52
10:42:56
10:42:59
10:43:01
10:43:05
10:43:06
10:43:10
10:43:12
10:43:15
10:43:18
10:43:26
10:43:38
10:43:55
10:43:59
5
one million because he got less than a million dollars
from each of the two banks that he defrauded and that I
should not aggregate those amounts for the $1.7 million
that he got to give him the plus-two.
Is that basically it?
MR. BERG: That is basically it. That is
how I read those provisions.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
And then the second objection is to
essentially paragraph 53, the obstruction of justice.
Look, really? He's going to try to say he
didn't obstruct. He's going out there telling witnesses
not to talk to the government; that's obstruction. That's
like ridiculous.
So that objection is overruled.
On the other hand, I will give you the
three points for acceptance of responsibility because he
did at least try to accept responsibility at the end.
I'll give you the three points for acceptance of
responsibility. That takes the total offense level in
paragraph 57 to 26, which changes the guideline range in
paragraph -- changes the guideline range in paragraph 105,
I guess it is, to -- that changes that to 110 to 137.
Does it change the fine range?
THE PROBATION OFFICER: The bottom of the
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 5 of 28
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
10:43:59
10:44:01
10:44:04
10:44:20
10:44:21
10:44:22
10:44:25
10:44:32
10:44:34
10:44:39
10:44:40
10:44:40
10:44:42
10:44:45
10:44:47
10:44:51
10:44:55
10:45:00
10:45:10
10:45:14
10:45:17
10:45:19
10:45:25
10:45:30
10:45:41
6
fine range is 25,000.
THE COURT: Then the fine range in
paragraph --
THE PROBATION OFFICER: I believe it's
114.
THE COURT: That changes the range from
$25,000 to $4,045,265.46.
Mr. Berg, was there any other factual
inaccuracies in the report that could have an impact on
sentencing at all?
MR. BERG: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court adopts the
presentence investigation report and the addendum with the
changes that the Court has just made today. Finds that
the statutory range of punishment on Counts 1 and 2 is not
more than 20 years; Counts 3, 4, 5, not more than ten
years. Supervised release on Counts 1 through 5 not more
than three years. Fine $4,045,265.46. Restitution
$1,689,952. Special assessment is $500.
Under the sentencing guidelines, based on
the total offense level of 26, Criminal History Category
of V, provides for a guideline range of 110 to 137 months.
Supervised release term of one to three years. Fine range
$25,000 to $4,045,265,46. Restitution $1,689,952.
Special assessment is $500.
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 6 of 28
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
10:45:44
10:45:49
10:45:51
10:45:53
10:45:55
10:45:56
10:45:58
10:46:02
10:46:04
10:46:05
10:46:11
10:46:17
10:46:33
10:46:35
10:46:36
10:46:36
10:46:36
10:46:36
10:46:38
10:46:41
10:46:44
10:46:46
10:46:48
7
All right, Mr. Berg, would you like to say
anything on behalf of your client?
MR. BERG: Well, my client -- I would like
him to speak first.
THE COURT: He wants to speak first?
MR. BERG: Yes. He and I spent a long
time getting to this point where he can speak well as to
his circumstances.
THE COURT: All right. That's fine.
Mr. Price, what would you like to say?
THE DEFENDANT: I wrote a letter to you as
well I stand before you guilt.
THE COURT: Speak into the mic. I want to
be able to hear what you're saying.
THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me, Your
Honor, I can't hear the defendant.
THE COURT: Speak up.
THE DEFENDANT: I stand before you a
guilty man. Guilty of having made a terminal mistake and
all honesty, it was mistake because you knew better
(indiscernible) would bring --
THE COURT: Slow down. I want to hear
what you're saying. You need to go slower and a lot
louder.
THE COURT REPORTER: Your Honor, I cannot
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 7 of 28
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
10:51:03
10:51:05
10:51:06
10:51:08
10:51:10
10:51:16
10:51:18
10:51:21
10:51:28
10:51:32
10:51:34
10:51:36
10:51:37
10:51:42
10:51:54
10:51:58
10:52:04
10:52:06
10:52:10
10:52:13
10:52:14
8
hear the defendant.
(Due to defendant's mask and inadequate
sound system, defendant's statement could not be
reported.)
THE COURT: Did you look at your criminal
history?
You don't have a year since you were 15
that you weren't involved in something in the criminal
justice system. Not one year. Every single year; 27
different offenses charged against you since you were 15
years old. I have never seen a criminal history like
this. You haven't tried to do anything with your life at
all. What is the deal?
Talk to me. Stop reading stuff to me.
Talk to me.
THE DEFENDANT: That's kind of the first
time I actually had which I knew -- I have -- I'm -- when
I actually had there and look at it. It was more of a --
THE COURT: This is you. Every single
year since you were 15, 16 years old you've had an
allegation of a crime. You didn't get convicted of all of
them. Some of them they just let go because you got
convicted of other crimes. So they kind of rolled them
all together.
I couldn't believe it. It's page after
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 8 of 28
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
10:52:16
10:52:22
10:52:24
10:52:33
10:52:36
10:52:38
10:52:43
10:52:46
10:52:48
10:52:51
10:52:53
10:52:58
10:53:03
10:53:04
10:53:05
10:53:08
10:53:10
10:53:15
10:53:20
10:53:25
10:53:29
10:53:33
10:53:38
10:53:45
10:53:47
9
page after page after page. This guy -- I look at your
family history, and it doesn't look like this is the kind
of life you should have had based on that family that you
came from. It doesn't look like it goes together.
You got a GED, went to college for a
minute, and then you just decided that you were just going
to be a thief. You just kind of made up your mind one
day, I'm just going to be a thief or what?
THE DEFENDANT: No. I think it was -- I
was running with a lot of (indiscernible) when I came out
here to Houston, I started college at Texas Southern. I
ran with a lot of older crowds that were -- and no way on
the right path.
THE COURT: Uh-huh.
THE DEFENDANT: So I kind of got pulled
towards a certain direction. Honestly, at that time
coming up, I enjoyed it. I liked it. It was a life that
I chose. And as growing up and now obviously having a
child now and seeing, you know, exactly how much it's
costing me, and just watching news recently, I was seeing
so many deaths popped up, I decided what if I had died?
Now when I got really -- my obituary that was something
that I could not (indiscernible) myself.
THE COURT: What's your future plan?
THE DEFENDANT: I enrolled in school. I
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 9 of 28
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
10:53:49
10:53:54
10:53:57
10:54:00
10:54:05
10:54:06
10:54:11
10:54:17
10:54:21
10:54:26
10:54:30
10:54:33
10:54:34
10:54:38
10:54:44
10:54:51
10:54:56
10:55:01
10:55:05
10:55:16
10:55:19
10:55:25
10:55:27
10:55:27
10:55:30
10
plan on taking my credits. I'm working on curriculum.
I'm following it, but they don't offer mail
correspondence. I been working on university that I can
transfer courses. Put the work in getting my degree in
sociology.
And I do plan on -- hopefully I'm going
into real estate investment full time; not just jumping
fences, hurdling the fence with illegal and legal --
THE COURT: You need to slow your roll.
You're just 30 years old, and you have this much criminal
history. You need to slow your roll. You'll be dead
before you're 40.
This doesn't make any sense. It literally
doesn't make any sense. You have a dad who retired from a
job that he spent 30 years in, a good job, and a mom who
is doing good stuff, and parents who were trying to figure
out how to make the best of the divorce situation and go
back and having an opportunity to be parented by both
parents. This makes literally no sense.
Then you mess up your mom's house by
putting money on her house. You messed up her deal. What
did you do pay off the mortgage or something?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: You thought you were doing her
a favor by paying her mortgage off with stolen money. It
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 10 of 28
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
10:55:35
10:55:38
10:55:39
10:55:40
10:55:41
10:55:42
10:55:45
10:55:47
10:55:52
10:55:57
10:56:03
10:56:06
10:56:10
10:56:17
10:56:18
10:56:21
10:56:23
10:56:26
10:56:27
10:56:28
10:56:30
10:56:35
10:56:39
10:56:41
10:56:54
11
didn't turn out to be a good favor. Now she's going to
have a big-ass lien on her house.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Did you tell her that she had
the lien on her house?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: They work hard in regular
jobs. Then you show up like you're the lottery dude.
That makes no sense at all. Mess up your mom's whole
deal. That makes no sense. You going to mess up her
house that she already lived in -- how long had she lived
in that house before you did that?
THE DEFENDANT: Maybe since '97.
THE COURT: When?
THE DEFENDANT: Maybe since '97.
THE COURT: So 20 years. She been paying
on the mortgage for 20 years. Doing fine on her own I
guess.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Then you come in and you're
like big man on campus and put $50,000 on her mortgage and
make her seem like it's all good. Now she's got a big
lien from the government on her house that she had already
been paying for 20 years. Mess up her whole deal. Makes
no sense. Then -- after you get out the jail, you going
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 11 of 28
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
10:57:02
10:57:04
10:57:06
10:57:09
10:57:14
10:57:22
10:57:26
10:57:28
10:57:29
10:57:31
10:57:38
10:57:38
10:57:40
10:57:42
10:57:45
10:57:51
10:57:54
10:57:58
10:58:02
10:58:05
10:58:09
10:58:16
10:58:19
10:58:24
10:58:28
12
to be a real estate investor? Is that what you said?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor. I still
have partial real estate company now that my child's
mother operates that we have together, and I plan on
getting back into the business.
THE COURT: Okay. All right.
Mr. Berg, would you like to say anything
else on behalf of your client?
MR. BERG: I would. My first words to my
client when we met were that a con man above all cons
himself.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
MR. BERG: A con man above always cons
himself before he cons anybody else. And Mr. Price's
struggle will be, as it has been, in not deceiving himself
as well as deceiving others.
Like I said, we've spent months over this
particular issue: Getting him to acknowledge his
responsibility. We got there I think, at least in terms
of acceptance of responsibility for this, and he is taking
some affirmative steps to get more education and a bit
more focus in his life. It will be a battle not to take
the easy way. That is his struggle. And we can only do
so much.
And regardless, even with the advantages
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 12 of 28
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
10:58:32
10:58:35
10:58:41
10:58:46
10:58:49
10:58:52
10:58:56
10:59:05
10:59:07
10:59:10
10:59:15
10:59:18
10:59:21
10:59:23
10:59:27
10:59:34
10:59:37
10:59:38
10:59:39
10:59:42
10:59:47
10:59:50
10:59:56
10:59:58
11:00:01
13
of the lower sentencing guidelines that we've got, he's
going to do a substantial sentence for this crime. And he
needs -- I've reiterated to him constantly that he needs
to take advantage of that time, to do things that are
positive. If he's to have a relationship with his child,
he's got to work on himself.
THE COURT: Absolutely.
MR. BERG: But I think he's capable of
doing it. He's talented and intelligent, but it's
misspent.
THE COURT: I like that con man's first
con is himself. He's trying to convince himself what he
was doing was some legitimate business deal here. This
was nothing but theft. No different than sticking up a
store. Sticking up a bank.
Anything from the United States,
Mr. Grisier?
MR. GRISIER: Yes, Your Honor. The
motivating factors here appears to have been the
defendant's guilt -- excuse me, his greed. And as a
result of his greed, the defendant obtained $1.6 million
in funds set aside by Congress and the Small Business
Administration for small business relief during the
uncertain months of the COVID pandemic.
As a result of the defendant's greed that
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 13 of 28
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
11:00:04
11:00:07
11:00:10
11:00:14
11:00:16
11:00:20
11:00:24
11:00:27
11:00:31
11:00:34
11:00:35
11:00:38
11:00:45
11:00:49
11:00:50
11:00:54
11:00:57
11:01:00
11:01:03
11:01:09
11:01:13
11:01:15
11:01:16
11:01:18
11:01:21
14
meant that through these fraudulent applications he took
that money off the table from a qualifying small business
that perhaps needed that money to help make ends meet,
keep employees on the payroll, or meet other qualified
expenses under this Paycheck Protection Program.
This was a sophisticated offense, Your
Honor, involving fraudulent information, false personal
identifying information, assumed names. It required
planning on the defendant's part.
As a result of that planning, the
defendant obtained this money and spent it not on any
businesses or any approved expense rather but on luxury
cars, a Rolex watch, nightlife and entertainment.
But Your Honor has already addressed in
some detail the defendant's criminal history and without
going too much further into it, the government would just
point out that there are echoes of this offense in some of
his previous offenses and convictions, including the use
of false identifying information to obtain luxury
vehicles. That is an offense dating back from 2014. I
believe it's detailed in paragraph 65.
THE COURT: Right. Right.
MR. GRISIER: Along with that, Your Honor,
shortly after his arrest in this case, after he was placed
on bond, the defendant was -- almost immediately stepped
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 14 of 28
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
11:01:25
11:01:29
11:01:33
11:01:35
11:01:36
11:01:40
11:01:43
11:01:45
11:01:48
11:01:50
11:01:52
11:01:57
11:01:59
11:02:03
11:02:07
11:02:10
11:02:12
11:02:15
11:02:19
11:02:21
11:02:26
11:02:28
11:02:31
11:02:32
11:02:37
15
back and had his bond revoked, and he has indeed been in
custody since August 31 of 2020 I believe, well over a
year now.
All these things being considered, Your
Honor, the government would ask -- would suggest that
there is a need for deterrence for this particular
defendant, and there is a more general need for
deterrence, as well for the general public.
While the Paycheck Protection Program, I
believe, has expired at this time, Your Honor, there is
certainly other emergency relief loan programs that come
about as a result of Congressional authorization, whether
that is due to a hurricane, an economic disaster from time
to time, and there is need for that general deterrence for
the public when these programs come up to not take
advantage of them in the way that the defendant has done.
So all those things being considered, the
government would advocate for a sentence within the new
guideline range and specifically on the higher end of that
range, between 130 and 137 months.
Also, so we have a clean record as to the
defendant's acceptance, the government is moving for the
additional point --
THE COURT: I saw that in your -- I guess
it was in your clarification or objections. It was in
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 15 of 28
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
11:02:41
11:02:45
11:02:49
11:02:49
11:02:52
11:02:56
11:02:58
11:03:00
11:03:06
11:03:08
11:03:08
11:03:14
11:03:16
11:03:20
11:03:23
11:03:30
11:03:36
11:03:39
11:03:42
11:03:47
11:03:51
11:03:53
11:03:54
11:03:57
11:04:01
16
your notice of objections and clarification information
with respect to the acceptance of responsibility. So that
was clear to the Court.
So when I granted the defendant's
objection with respect to not getting credit for
acceptance of responsibility, I counted that third point
in there. That is how I got to 26. Obviously, you know
that. But I did see that in your statement. So that is
why I included that in there.
All right.
MR. GRISIER: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The Court will state the
sentence at this time. The lawyers will have a final
opportunity to make objection before the sentence is
imposed.
It is the judgment of this Court that the
defendant, Lee E. Price, III, is hereby committed to the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a
term of 110 months as to Counts 1 through 5. All such
terms to run concurrently, for a total offense term of 110
months.
The defendant is before this Court for
sentencing. Having pled guilty to two counts of wire
fraud and three counts of engaging in monetary
transactions in criminally derived property.
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 16 of 28
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
11:04:04
11:04:06
11:04:09
11:04:12
11:04:16
11:04:23
11:04:28
11:04:32
11:04:37
11:04:44
11:04:48
11:04:52
11:04:56
11:04:57
11:05:00
11:05:03
11:05:07
11:05:11
11:05:14
11:05:19
11:05:23
11:05:27
11:05:30
11:05:34
11:05:39
17
The defendant submitted five fraudulent
paycheck protection program loan applications for
assistance authorized by the CARES Act in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Two of those loans were funded and the
defendant received $1,689,952 in ill-gotten loan proceeds.
He used those loan proceeds in a manner that is
unpermissible (sic) under the CARES Act and made
outlandish purchases, including buying a 2020 F-350 pickup
truck, a Rolex valued at more than $9,000, a 2019
Lamborghini worth more than $200,000 and other
expenditures including going to strip clubs, eating out
and unfortunately paying off the mortgage on his mother's
home.
The defendant has an extensive criminal
history, beginning at age 16, which has continued
uninterrupted absent periods of incarceration. His
criminal history is varied and includes convictions for
disorderly conduct, involving discharging a firearm; use
of counterfeit money; theft; delivery of marijuana;
robbery, involving the display of a handgun; driving while
intoxicated; fraudulent use; possession of identification.
Numerous other charges were dismissed in
light of convictions entered in other cases. Twenty-seven
arrests and/or convictions in all. The defendant was
subject to a term of deferred adjudication, community
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 17 of 28
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
11:05:44
11:05:45
11:05:48
11:05:53
11:05:56
11:06:00
11:06:05
11:06:10
11:06:12
11:06:15
11:06:18
11:06:25
11:06:28
11:06:34
11:06:38
11:06:40
11:06:46
11:06:50
11:06:52
11:06:57
11:07:00
11:07:02
11:07:04
11:07:08
11:07:12
18
supervision at the time of this offense.
He was also pending trial in six cases and
had been released on bond in each of those cases. The
defendant's history -- criminal history and conduct in the
instant offense paints a picture of an opportunistic
offender, who is guilty of greed and has been undeterred
by repeated interactions with the criminal justice system.
The guidelines appropriately contemplate a
significant term of imprisonment, even while accounting
for exploitation of a program designed to help businesses
in a country struggling with an unprecedented loss due to
the COVID-19 pandemic.
A term of imprisonment of 110 months is
something that the Court believes reflects the purposes of
the sentence as set forth in 18 United States Code Section
3553. It reflects the seriousness of the offense. It
will promote respect for the law. It will provide just
punishment. It will deter this defendant and others from
engaging in the same sort of criminal conduct. It will
protect the public from further crimes of this defendant.
Upon release from imprisonment, the
defendant shall be placed on supervised release for a term
of three years as to each of Counts 1 through 5. All such
terms to run concurrently.
Three-year term of supervised release is
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 18 of 28
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
11:07:14
11:07:19
11:07:24
11:07:33
11:07:35
11:07:37
11:07:38
11:07:40
11:07:45
11:07:46
11:07:49
11:07:52
11:07:55
11:07:56
11:07:59
11:08:01
11:08:05
11:08:08
11:08:10
11:08:13
11:08:13
11:08:16
11:08:18
11:08:21
11:08:24
19
imposed in this case to monitor the defendant, as he is
reintegrated in the community to assure that he pays the
restitution owed, and that three-year term is to each of
Counts 1 through 5 to run concurrently.
Within 72 hours of release from the
custody of the Bureau of Prisons, the defendant shall
report in person to the probation office in the district
to which the defendant is released.
While on supervised release, the defendant
shall not commit another federal, state or local crime;
shall comply with the standard conditions that have been
adopted by this Court; and any mandatory conditions
required by law including the following:
You must participate in an outpatient
substance abuse treatment program and follow the rules and
regulations of that program. The probation officer will
supervise your participation in that program, including
the provider, location, modality, duration and intensity.
You must pay the cost of the program, if financially able
to do so.
You must not possess any controlled
substance without a valid prescription. If you do have a
valid prescription, you must follow the instructions. You
must submit to substance abuse testing to determine if you
have used a prohibited substance. You may not attempt to
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 19 of 28
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
11:08:28
11:08:29
11:08:32
11:08:34
11:08:50
11:08:56
11:09:03
11:09:05
11:09:09
11:09:12
11:09:17
11:09:22
11:09:26
11:09:29
11:09:32
11:09:32
11:09:37
11:09:40
11:09:42
11:09:46
11:09:47
11:09:51
11:09:55
11:09:58
11:10:01
20
obstruct or tamper with the testing methods.
You may not use or possess alcohol.
You must make restitution to the victims
totaling $1,689,952 to the following: Harvest Bank,
$752,452; and the Small Business Administration, $937,500
for the loan that you received through the Radius Bank.
You must provide the probation officer
with any requested access to any requested financial
information and authorized release of that financial
information, and the probation office may share that
information with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
The defendant is also ordered not to incur
any new credit charges or open additional lines of credit
without approval of the probation officer.
The defendant shall pay to the United
States a special assessment of $500 due and payable
immediately. The Court finds that the defendant does not
have the ability to pay a fine within the guideline range
in addition to the restitution that is owed. The fine is
waived.
The criminal monetary penalties imposed
are due as follows: The defendant shall begin payment
immediately. Any unpaid balance due in the greater of $25
per quarter or 50 percent of any wages earned while in
prison in accordance with the Bureau of Prisons Inmate
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 20 of 28
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
11:10:04
11:10:06
11:10:09
11:10:12
11:10:15
11:10:17
11:10:22
11:10:29
11:10:32
11:10:33
11:10:34
11:10:37
11:10:40
11:10:43
11:10:47
11:10:49
11:10:51
11:10:54
11:10:55
11:10:59
11:11:00
11:11:02
11:11:03
11:11:05
11:11:05
21
Financial Responsibility Program. Any balance remaining
after release from imprisonment shall be due in monthly
installments no less than $250 per month to commence 30
days after release from imprisonment to a term of
supervised release. Payment is to be made through the
United States District Clerk's Office Southern District of
Texas.
Mr. Grisier, any reason why the sentence
should not be imposed?
MR. GRISIER: No. I have two points of
clarification to raise possibly. The first is about the
restitution. I want to clarify the victims were Harvest
Small Business Finance and the Small Business
Administration. Radius Bank slash also known as --
THE COURT: I said Small Business
Administration for the loan that was originally received
from Radius Bank. I said "Small Business Administration."
MR. GRISIER: Perfect. Thank you. The
only other point the government would raise is with regard
to any forfeiture --
THE COURT: I'm not there yet. I'm on the
sentence.
Any reason why sentence should not --
MR. GRISIER: No, I do not.
THE COURT: Mr. Berg?
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 21 of 28
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
11:11:07
11:11:09
11:11:10
11:11:11
11:11:13
11:11:18
11:11:21
11:11:23
11:11:25
11:11:26
11:11:29
11:11:31
11:11:34
11:11:34
11:11:37
11:11:38
11:11:38
11:11:42
11:11:46
11:11:49
11:11:50
11:11:52
11:11:53
11:11:55
11:11:55
22
MR. BERG: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: The sentence is imposed as
stated.
Mr. Price, you can appeal your conviction
if you believe that your guilty plea was somehow unlawful
or involuntary or if you think that there was some other
financial defect in the proceedings that was not waived by
you.
With few exceptions, any notice of appeal
must be filed within 15 days of the date that judgment is
entered in this case. If you are without funds to hire an
attorney to represent you, you can apply to the Court for
in forma pauperis status and counsel will be appointed for
you.
Do you understand me?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Now, Mr. Grisier,
we can talk about the forfeiture. The sentence first.
Always trying to make me forget to impose the sentence by
talking about other stuff.
MR. GRISIER: I apologize.
THE COURT: I have a motion for
preliminary order of forfeiture. Was this unopposed,
Mr. Berg?
MR. BERG: That's correct.
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 22 of 28
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
11:11:57
11:12:06
11:12:11
11:12:14
11:12:19
11:12:20
11:12:24
11:12:28
11:12:31
11:12:34
11:12:36
11:12:39
11:12:43
11:12:44
11:12:49
11:12:50
11:12:51
11:12:53
11:12:54
11:12:55
11:12:57
11:12:58
11:13:01
11:13:02
11:13:03
23
THE COURT: I had one question on this.
Mr. Grisier, were the funds that were
already referenced in the notice to the Court regarding
forfeiture, are those already applied to the restitution?
MR. GRISIER: Not to the restitution. But
to the -- they should be, Your Honor. We have the --
there is a process for doing that through -- we ask the
agencies who have seized and forfeited those funds. I
believe it's called remission, where they can accept
petitions. And actually since we'll have a restitution
order in this case, we should be able to get those funds
back to SBA and Harvest as they come in.
THE COURT: Okay. So that is the plan
then. Those funds will go to pay off restitution to these
victims?
MR. GRISIER: Exactly. My understanding
is they're waiting on the order to come down after the
sentencing.
THE COURT: From the Court?
MR. GRISIER: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Seems like there was a lot of
cash still left that could go to some of the victims for
the restitution payments; correct?
MR. GRISIER: Yes.
THE COURT: That will happen?
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 23 of 28
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
11:13:04
11:13:07
11:13:09
11:13:14
11:13:18
11:13:22
11:13:22
11:13:23
11:13:25
11:13:26
11:13:32
11:13:34
11:13:34
11:13:36
11:13:39
11:13:40
11:13:44
11:13:47
11:13:53
11:13:59
11:14:02
11:14:04
11:14:07
11:14:09
11:14:11
24
MR. GRISIER: That will happen. And I
believe the vehicles and the Rolex watch have not been
auctioned off or sold at this point by the Postal
Inspection Service. Once those assets have been
liquidated, those funds will be credited --
THE COURT: To the victims?
MR. GRISIER: Yes.
THE COURT: I gotcha. Wanted to make sure
I understood.
It hasn't happened yet because we need the
order in place first.
MR. GRISIER: That is my understanding.
THE COURT: Somebody will get a
Lamborghini for cheap, huh?
MR. GRISIER: Indeed, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Oh, my goodness.
I wanted to make sure that I understood
language I was concerned about, and I wanted to ask you if
this was the way that the language needed to be stated.
It says: The real property at 10718
Staghill Drive is forfeited to the United States.
And then it says: Pursuant to -- then it
says: Limited to a lien against the property in the
amount of $50,000.
So why does it say that it's forfeited as
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 24 of 28
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
11:14:15
11:14:18
11:14:21
11:14:23
11:14:24
11:14:26
11:14:29
11:14:32
11:14:36
11:14:38
11:14:41
11:14:45
11:14:47
11:14:48
11:14:51
11:14:56
11:14:58
11:14:59
11:15:01
11:15:01
11:15:06
11:15:09
11:15:14
11:15:19
11:15:21
25
opposed to just, there is a lien against the property in
favor of the United States in the amount of $50,000?
What's with that language?
MR. GRISIER: I thought that the
limitation would be sufficient to cover that concern. It
was a concern of ours as well. In drawing up the
financial order of forfeiture, we can amend that to make
it clearer -- as clear as possible that it is a lien --
THE COURT: I don't really want the words
"forfeited" to be in here. I don't feel comfortable
signing an order saying his mother's property that she
lived and paid a note on for 20 years is being forfeited
to the United States.
Why can't we say that the real property is
subject to a lien against the property in the amount of
$50,000?
MR. GRISIER: No reason we can't.
THE COURT: That is what I'm going to do.
I don't feel like writing this word that her property is
forfeited to the United States.
The real property at Staghill Drive I'm
going to put is "encumbered" instead of "forfeited."
MR. GRISIER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: To the United States, limited
to a lien against the property in the amount of $50,000.
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 25 of 28
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
11:15:26
11:15:32
11:15:33
11:15:37
11:15:43
11:15:45
11:15:47
11:15:50
11:15:59
11:16:03
11:16:06
11:16:07
11:16:11
11:16:13
11:16:15
11:16:19
11:16:20
11:16:24
11:16:26
11:16:28
11:16:29
11:16:34
11:16:36
11:16:37
11:16:39
26
And then can she pay on that as well?
MR. GRISIER: I'm not sure. That's sort
of the purpose of -- I think there is an ancillary hearing
on that where Ms. Price will be given notice to appear at
that hearing if she wishes to contest it and make
representations that she has.
As far as her ability to pay, I'm not sure
what that is. It may also be satisfied at such a time
that the house is sold I believe. It essentially operates
as a lien against the house.
THE COURT: I know. But I'm assuming that
the house she lived in for 20 years she didn't have any
immediate plans to put it on the market.
MR. GRISIER: I would assume not as well.
At such a time in the future, that may be possible.
THE COURT: All right. We have to set --
you want to set a hearing on the final forfeiture?
MR. GRISIER: We'll give notice --
THE COURT: Because of her situation?
MR. GRISIER: Yes, Your Honor. I think
that is covered in Rule 35.
THE COURT: She'll have an opportunity to
speak at that point?
MR. GRISIER: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Anything else?
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 26 of 28
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
11:17:01
11:17:03
11:17:06
11:17:08
11:17:11
11:17:18
11:17:20
11:17:20
11:17:21
11:17:23
11:17:25
11:17:26
11:17:27
11:17:27
11:17:29
11:17:35
11:17:36
11:17:37
11:17:39
27
MR. BERG: No. We had agreed to a lien.
So that is correct.
THE COURT: All right. It says that the
home is "encumbered." It's not going to say it's
forfeited. I don't like that.
All right. Anything else from the United
States?
MR. GRISIER: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Mr. Berg?
MR. BERG: My client would request
designation to Bastrop.
THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: It's the further
recommendation of this Court that the defendant be
incarcerated at Federal Bureau of Prisons Bastrop if that
is available and appropriate.
Anything else?
MR. BERG: No, Your Honor.
(Proceedings concluded.)
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 27 of 28
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
28
C E R T I F I C A T E
I hereby certify that pursuant to Title 28, Section 753
United States Code, the foregoing is a true and correct
transcript of the stenographically reported proceedings in
the above matter.
Certified on January 12, 2022.
/s/ Nichole Forrest____________
Nichole Forrest, RDR, CRR, CRC
Case 4:20-cr-00522 Document 118 Filed on 01/13/22 in TXSD Page 28 of 28File and source
- File
- 007_ECF_118_gov.uscourts.txsd.1799072.118.0.pdf
- Size
- 213,569 bytes
- SHA-256
- 748d4e002c5b03101bbe064b8669b059777ce81e5f2e13f1234b465fea98c62f
- Original
- storage.courtlistener.com