Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — U.S. v. Ransom (S.D. W. Va.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:22-cr-00122 · Doc. 26 · 2023-01-05 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA 
 
CHARLESTON DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Case No. 2:22-cr-00122 
 
ALEXIS RANSOM 
 
 
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
 
 
COMES NOW the Defendant, Alexis Ransom, by counsel, 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. Ransom requests a sentence of 2 years’ probation. 
I. 
BACKGROUND 
 
Alexis Renae Ransom was born on October 12, 1997, (age 25) in Daytona 
Beach, Florida, the only child of Anthony Ransom and Debra Cornes.  Her parents 
were never married.  When Ms. Ransom was 12 or 13, she, her mother (a native of 
Mingo County) and her grandmother moved to Logan County, West Virginia, to care 
for a sick relative.  While at Logan High School, Ms. Ransom participated in JROTC, 
softball, and various volunteer activities.  She graduated in 2016 with a 3.5 GPA and 
obtained her Associates Degree in Criminal Justice from Southern West Virginia 
Community and Technical College before taking additional courses in pursuit of her 
bachelor’s degree.  She has mostly worked for herself through her online retail 
businesses including Renae’s Fashion Consulting LLC and Momma & Me Boutique 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 1 of 9 PageID #: 80

 
2 
and has some additional work experience cleaning houses and at the June Harless 
Children’s Home in Holden, West Virginia, as well as the SWVCTC bookstore.   
When the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020, Ms. Ransom’s cleaning 
work dried up in part due to some of her clients contracting COVID and passing away.  
Furthermore, she became pregnant, lost her transportation, and contracted COVID 
herself.  Over the last few years, she has sometimes been employed and attended 
classes, but struggled to do either consistently due to some combination of her 
pregnancies, lack of financial resources, and her pending charges.  Although Ms. 
Ransom is currently employed at the bookstore and receives food stamps, she is still 
forced to rely on her partner, Musco Adams, to pay the rent and utilities.  Mr. Adams 
is self- employed.  As demonstrated by her education and work history, Ms. Ransom 
does have the skills to find and maintain gainful employment should she receive 
counseling, training, and support to help her get back on her feet.  Ms. Ransom and 
Mr. Adams have two children, ages two and two months, for whom they are almost 
entirely responsible for providing basic life necessities. 
This case involves Ms. Ransom’s theft of approximately $42,250 in Paycheck 
Protection Program (“PPP”) loans from the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) 
via the American Lending Center (“ALC”).  The funds derived from three loans (two 
in identical amounts of $13,937.50, approved on April 5 and 27, 2021, and a third in 
the amount of $14,375, approved June 8, 2021) which were subsequently disbursed 
to Ms. Ransom.  The loans were later fully forgiven.  It does not appear that she spent 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 2 of 9 PageID #: 81

 
3 
any of the money frivolously or on luxury items, but rather used it to merely help get 
by as she raised her young daughter.   
Ms. Ransom pleaded guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to a single-
count Information charging her with Wire Fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by 
submitting false and fraudulent documentation in support of the loan applications, 
including fictitious Schedule C’s, Federal Unemployment Tax Returns, and invoices 
for Renae’s Fashion Consulting LLC.  The PSR has been drafted and revised, and 
there are no outstanding objections that affect the advisory Guideline range.  Ms. 
Ransom’s Criminal History Category is I and her advisory Guideline range is 8-14 
months based on a Total Offense Level 11.  Ms. Ransom requests that the court 
impose a sentence of 2 years’ probation.     
II. 
SENTENCING FACTORS 
In post-Booker sentencing, district courts are to calculate the appropriate 
Guideline range, consider that range in conjunction with other relevant factors under 
18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), and impose a sentence.  In this case, a sentence of 2 years’ 
probation would be sufficient, and not greater than necessary. 
(1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and 
characteristics of the defendant; 
 
Saddling Ms. Ransom with a term of imprisonment in this case would not be 
beneficial for her, for her children, or for society as a whole.  Rather, she deserves an 
opportunity to accept responsibility for her actions, repay the meager loss amount, 
and utilize access to treatment, counseling, and other support systems while on 
probation that will enable her to obtain and maintain gainful employment with which 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 3 of 9 PageID #: 82

 
4 
she may provide for her young family.  With minimal criminal history and some 
college credit, Ms. Ransom has the capability to live a productive life and raise her 
children.  If she is sentenced to a term of imprisonment, however, it would only 
exacerbate the problems she faces as it would remove her from her children’s lives 
thus forcing them to live with relatives or, worse, forcing them into the foster care 
system.  Should Ms. Ransom not take advantage of the opportunity to turn her life 
around while on probation (and with the structure and support that accompanies it), 
then a prison sentence may well be appropriate.  However, that should be the last 
resort for a young lady in her situation, particularly given her background and family 
circumstances. 
A sentence of probation would provide Ms. Ransom with access to treatment 
and counseling that would better enable her to cope with the anxiety and stress of 
being a young, poor mother.  It would further provide her the structure, support, and 
incentive she needs to obtain gainful employment, find stable housing and reliable 
transportation, and support her family.  Probation is an ideal resolution for her case 
because it would provide her the incentive of successfully completing her term of 
probation knowing that a term of imprisonment would await if she violates her 
conditions.  
It should be noted that Ms. Ransom’s conduct while on bond has been 
exemplary.  She has refrained from using controlled substances, sought and obtained 
gainful employment, and otherwise followed the directions of the probation office as 
required.  This is all the more remarkable given the challenges she has faced not only 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 4 of 9 PageID #: 83

 
5 
with the birth of her second child in November, but also the unexpected death of her 
father on Thanksgiving Day 2022.  She has truly been through a great deal of stress 
over the last year or two, and has done remarkably well under the circumstances.  
The nature and circumstances of the offense likewise do not counsel in favor of 
a prison sentence.  This is, as much as anything, a crime of opportunity as at the time 
she applied for the PPP loans, Ms. Ransom was a young mother trying to provide for 
her young family on hourly jobs while aspiring to break into the retail and fashion 
consulting businesses.  Seeing the federal Government handing out billions of dollars 
to small businesses via forgivable loans and having been contacted by the American 
Lending Center regarding a potential PPP application, Ms. Ransom spied an 
opportunity join the millions of others who took free money from the Government.  
Although she is bright (with a high school diploma and some college), she is also 
young and naïve and failed to appreciate the gravity of her actions in falsifying 
documents in connection with her PPP “loan” application.  Living in southern West 
Virginia with limited opportunities to obtain employment to support herself and her 
family, it is understandable how one might fall into the temptation presented by the 
PPP program.  Finally, rather than spend the money lavishly, Ms. Ransom used the 
funds to provide basic needs for herself and her family.1  Nothing about this case 
 
1 One might argue that federal assistance during the early part of the COVID-19 pandemic would have 
better been directed at poor young mothers like Ms. Ransom rather than already-well-to-do businesses 
such as the 55 West Virginia law firms who received more than $58.5 million in PPP loans.  See Chris 
Dickerson, More than 55 W. Va. Law firms took PPP loans for as much as $58.5 million, West Virginia 
Record (July 8, 2020), available at https://wvrecord.com/stories/542055517-more-than-55-w-va-law-
firms-took-ppp-loans-for-as-much-as-58-5-million (last visited January 4, 2022).  While this 
comparison does not justify or excuse Ms. Ransom’s behavior, it does illustrate her comparative need 
during a time of financial hardship.  See also David Autor et al., The $800 Billion Paycheck Protection 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 5 of 9 PageID #: 84

 
6 
counsels in favor of a prison sentence, particularly given Ms. Ransom’s two young 
children who need her home to care for them and support them.   
(2) The need for the sentence imposed to: 
 
a. Reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for 
the law, and to provide just punishment; 
b. Afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; 
c. Protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and 
d. Provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational 
training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the 
most effective manner; 
 
A sentence of 24 months’ probation will promote respect for the law and provide 
just punishment.  Such a sentence is sufficient to deter others from committing 
similar crimes, as empirical studies have demonstrated that the most effective 
deterrent is the certainty of receiving punishment, not the severity of the punishment 
received.  See Marc Mauer, Long-Term Sentences: Time to Reconsider the Scale of 
Punishment, The Sentencing Project (November 2018).2  Ms. Ransom’s conduct is not 
so egregious that a federal felony conviction and a term of probation would not reflect 
the seriousness of the offense, promote respect for the law, or provide just 
punishment.  Moreover, the mere fact of a felony conviction is sufficient to deter Ms. 
Ransom and other people who lack a criminal record from engaging in similar 
conduct, as she is in the class of defendants for whom a felony conviction, rather than 
prison time, is the most life-altering consequence.   
 
Program: Where Did the Money Go and Why Did It Go There?, Journal of Economic Perspectives 
(Spring 2022) https://blueprintcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/jep.36.2.55.pdf (“The remaining 
[72%] flowed to the top fifth of household income.”).  
   
2 Available online at: https://www.sentencingproject.org/app/uploads/2022/08/UMKC-Law-Review-
Scale-of-Punishment.pdf   (last visited December 12, 2022). 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 6 of 9 PageID #: 85

 
7 
Probation is also an appropriate result for her case because it would provide 
her the incentive of successfully complying with the terms of supervision knowing 
that prison time awaits her should she violate them.  Accordingly, probation will 
permit Ms. Ransom to demonstrate to herself, her children, and society that her 
conduct in this instance was a youthful mistake and not a step toward a life of crime.  
(3) The kinds of sentences available; 
A sentence of probation is available under the statute.  Should the Court 
believe a sentence of imprisonment is warranted, Ms. Ransom would request that the 
entirety of any such sentence be served on home confinement, which alternative 
sentence is available both under the Guidelines and by statute.   
(4) The kinds of sentence and the [Guideline] sentencing range; 
 
A sentence of probation would represent a slight, but warranted, downward 
variance from the advisory Guideline range of 8-14 months.  That range is based 
entirely on the nature of the offense (including the loss amount) and Ms. Ransom’s 
lack of criminal history, but does not account for her age, education, family situation, 
or the circumstances giving rise to her offense.   
(5) Any pertinent policy statement; 
The requested sentence is not precluded by any pertinent policy statement.  
(6) The need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among 
defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of 
similar conduct; and 
 
Malik Breckenridge was sentenced to a term of 60 months’ probation by Judge 
Berger in a PPP fraud case involving $41,666 in loss and an identical Guideline 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 7 of 9 PageID #: 86

 
8 
calculation to Ms. Ransom.  See United States v. Malik Breckenridge, Case No. 2:22-
cr-00084.  Counsel is not aware of any other comparative sentences for defendants 
with similar characteristics who have been prosecuted for fraud related to PPP loans.  
However, to the extent other offenders have received Guideline sentences, a 
downward variance is warranted for the reasons set forth above.  With respect to Mr. 
Breckenridge, it is unknown what factors led Judge Berger to vary downward and 
impose a sentence of 60 months’ probation.  Due to Ms. Ransom’s history and 
characteristics, however, including her children, a sentence of 24 months’ probation 
represents a warranted sentencing disparity.           
(7) The need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense. 
A sentence of imprisonment would further hinder Ms. Ransom’s already 
difficult path to satisfying her restitution obligation.  Previously, as a young mother 
in Logan County, West Virginia, she struggled to find steady employment at any 
good-paying job.  In fact, it was her financial struggles that helped create the 
conditions that led to her offense.  Now, despite having some college education, her 
job prospects are bleaker due to her felony conviction.  She will need to rely on the 
assistance of the probation office to find good-paying jobs for women with a felony 
conviction so she can repay her debt and provide for her family.  A sentence of 
probation would allow her to begin that journey whereas a sentence of imprisonment 
would not only delay it, but further complicate it by forcing her to expand time and 
energy re-establishing her life following her release.  
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 8 of 9 PageID #: 87

 
9 
Ms. Ransom would further request that the Court decline to impose a fine in 
this matter.  In light of her current (and anticipated future) financial condition, her 
outstanding restitution obligation, and the need for her to provide for her two small 
children, a sentence including a fine would be unduly punitive, unwarranted, and 
would result in additional financial hardship for an already struggling young mother.       
III. 
CONCLUSION 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Alexis Ransom requests that 
the Court sentence her to a term of 2 years’ probation. 
 
 
Respectfully submitted this 5th day of January, 2023. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ALEXIS RANSOM 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Counsel 
WESLEY P. PAGE 
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER 
 
s/ Wesley P. Page  
 
 
 
Wesley P. Page, Bar No. 10529 
Federal Public Defender 
300 Virginia Street, East, Room 3400 
Charleston, West Virginia  25301 
Telephone: (304) 347-3350 
Facsimile: (304) 347-3356 
E-mail:  wesley_page@fd.org  
 
 
Case 2:22-cr-00122     Document 26     Filed 01/05/23     Page 9 of 9 PageID #: 88

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.wvsd.234420.26.0.pdf

Size

159,136 bytes

SHA-256

9d6b7bae2825ae750f1e7965227eee4a7b9886f38f218244aa0a62aed33c2910

Our copy

gov.uscourts.wvsd.234420.26.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)