Court filing
Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Austin Martin Siampwizi
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2024-03-22 |
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC · Doc. 35 · 2024-03-22 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Defendant Austin M. Siampwizi's sentencing memorandum in United States v. Austin M. Siampwizi, No. 1:23-CR-246-WMR-RDC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed March 22, 2024 as Document 35 ahead of a March 26, 2024 sentencing hearing. It asks for a sentence of no more than 18 months in prison. The memorandum states that he pled guilty on December 14, 2023 to Count 1, a money laundering conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), and admitted personally laundering $175,600. It objects to the presentence report's loss and restitution calculations, arguing under USSG § 2S1.1 and USSG § 1B1.3 that loss should be limited to the charged scheme and that the base offense level should be 18, and it seeks a downward variance under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Exhibit A is a letter of support and Exhibit B contains business project documents.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
No. 1:23-CR-246-WMR-RDC
)
)
AUSTIN M. SIAMPWIZI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
DEFENDANT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Defendant Austin Siampwizi respectfully submits this Sentencing
Memorandum for the Court’s review in advance of his March 26, 2024 sentencing
hearing. For the reasons set forth below, Mr. Siampwizi asks that this Court
sentence him to no more than 18 months in prison.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Siampwizi was indicted on July 25, 2023 and charged with participating
in two completely separate fraud schemes. The first scheme related to an
unemployment benefits scheme involving residents of Washington State
(hereinafter, “Unemployment Scheme”). His co-conspirators allegedly filed
fraudulent unemployment benefits claims; directed the proceeds of that wire
fraud into various business bank accounts; used funds from those accounts to
purchase money orders; and cashed those money orders. (Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 9-12.) Mr.
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 1 of 11
2
Siampwizi’s alleged role was cashing those money orders, and he was charged
with three substantive money laundering counts related to money orders he
cashed. (Id. ¶ 13.) The Unemployment Scheme is alleged to have spanned two
months, March through May 2020. (Id. ¶ 1.)
The second charged scheme related to one fraudulent Economic Injury
Disaster Loan application Mr. Siampwizi allegedly filed for his business, Global
Car Rental LLC (hereinafter, “EIDL Scheme”). The government charged that he
falsely claimed that the business had six employees and gross revenues of $226,500
in 2010. (Id. ¶ 23.) The EIDL Scheme is alleged to have begun after the
Unemployment Scheme, spanning from July 16, 2020 to August 11, 2020. (Id. ¶ 16.)
On December 14, 2023, Mr. Siampwizi pled guilty to Count 1 of the
indictment, which charged him with participating in the Unemployment Scheme
money laundering conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1956(h)). (Dkt. 32-1.) Mr. Siampwizi
admitted that he personally laundered $175,600 as part of that scheme, but
reserved his right to dispute whether (1) funds laundered by other conspirators,
and (2) any EIDL and PPP loans the government believes were fraudulent would
count towards his loss amount as relevant conduct. (Id. at 5 n. 1.)
The U.S. Probation Officer prepared a Presentence Report (“PSR”) to which
both parties submitted timely objections. In addition to factual objections, Mr.
Siampwizi objected to the PSR’s calculation for loss amount and restitution. The
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 2 of 11
3
probation officer included categories of loss that were nowhere in the indictment,
including an application for Georgia unemployment insurance benefits Mr.
Siampwizi allegedly filed for himself, Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loan
applications for other businesses he owns, and a scheme to file fraudulent tax
returns with the Internal Revenue Service. (PSR ¶¶ 29-32, 34-43.) None of these
schemes are mentioned in the indictment.
Adding these unrelated schemes together, the PSR concludes that Mr.
Siampwizi is responsible for laundering $363,976.99 and that his Base Offense
Level should be 20 based on that amount. (PSR ¶¶ 49, 60.) It concludes that
restitution owed is $279,210.52. (PSR ¶ 57.) After factoring in the undisputed
Guidelines adjustments and his Criminal History Category of Three, this yields a
custody Guidelines range of 37 to 46 months. Mr. Siampwizi objected, arguing that
his loss should be cabined to the schemes with which he was charged and found
guilty and that the restitution he owes should be limited to those schemes. His
Base Offense Level should be 18, which would adjust his custody Guidelines range
to 30 to 37 months.
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 3 of 11
4
ARGUMENT
1. The Applicable Guideline, USSG § 2S1.1, Does Not Support
Expanding the Loss Amount Beyond the Money Laundering Count to
Which Mr. Siampwizi Pled Guilty.
The loss amount for money laundering convictions shall be 8 plus the
offense level enhancement in USSG § 2B1.1 (fraud loss table) that “correspond[s]
to the value of the laundered funds.” USSG § 2S1.1 This language is plain, concise,
and means exactly what it says. To the extent the term “laundered funds” could
be considered ambiguous, this Court may look to the Sentencing Commission’s
commentary for further guidance. United States v. Dupree, 57 F.4th 1269, 1274-75
(11th Cir. 2023). That commentary states that “laundered funds” are the “property,
funds, or monetary instrument involved in” the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. USSG
§ 2S1.1 cmt. n. 1.
The PSR is simply wrong, then, to include within “laundered funds” those
amounts that stem from schemes that have nothing to do with the money
laundering charged in the indictment and for which this Court found Mr.
Siampwizi guilty. Loss is tied to the funds laundered, not that sum plus whatever
miscellaneous sums from unrelated fraud schemes the government sends to the
Probation Officer for inclusion in the PSR.
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 4 of 11
5
2. The Extrinsic Fraud Schemes Are Not “Relevant Conduct” Under
USSG § 1B1.3.
To the extent the government intends to argue that fraud stemming from
schemes for which Mr. Siampwizi was not convicted and not even charged, that
conduct can only factor into the loss amount if it satisfies the test for “relevant
conduct.” See USSG § 1B1.3. That Guideline makes clear, however, that conduct
that can affect the offense level is relevant only if it is within the scope of the crime
of conviction. Such conduct includes:
(1) (A) all acts and omissions committed, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded,
induced, procured, or willfully caused by the defendant; and
(B) in the case of a jointly undertaken criminal activity (a criminal plan, scheme,
endeavor, or enterprise undertaken by the defendant in concert with others, whether
or not charged as a conspiracy), all acts and omissions of others that were—
(i) within the scope of the jointly undertaken criminal activity,
(ii) in furtherance of that criminal activity, and
(iii) reasonably foreseeable in connection with that criminal activity;
that occurred during the commission of the offense of conviction, in preparation for
that offense, or in the course of attempting to avoid detection or responsibility for
that offense.
USSG § 1B1.3(a)(1). It is this last clause—requiring that the conduct occur as part
of the convicted conduct (including in preparation or coverup)—that the PSR
overlooks.
The Guideline commentary provides further support for limiting relevant
conduct to conduct that is actually part of the offense of conviction and not wholly
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 5 of 11
6
extraneous conduct. The “scope” of relevant conduct “is not necessarily the same
for every participant” and requires the court to “first determine the scope of the
criminal activity the particular defendant agreed to jointly undertake.” USSG §
1B1.3 cmt. n. 3(a). The discussion in this section is describing the scheme or
conspiracy that forms the basis of conviction (e.g., a fraud scheme or drug
distribution conspiracy). The examples illustrated in Note 4 of the commentary
support limiting “relevant conduct” to that which is within the scope of the
scheme at issue in the count of conviction, not wholly separate conduct.
Relevant conduct also incorporates conduct for which a defendant is
charged but not convicted if—had the defendant been convicted of those counts—
they would group under USSG § 3D1.2(d). See USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2) and cmt. n. 5.
Such counts would only group if the “involve[d] substantially the same harm” as
determined by “the total amount of harm or loss, the quantity of a substance
involved, or some other measure of aggregate harm, or if the offense behavior is
ongoing or continuous in nature and the offense guideline is written to cover such
behavior.” USSG § 3D1.2(d).
The PSR maintains the probation officer’s position, over defense objection,
that the Georgia Unemployment Benefits scheme and PPP/EIDL loan schemes
count as relevant conduct because they “would have been grouped pursuant to
USSG § 3D1.2(d).” (PSR ¶ 49.) But this conduct was not even charged, but for the
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 6 of 11
7
one EIDL loan. The application note to USSG § 1B1.3 makes it clear that the
defendant need not have been “convicted of multiple counts” for the grouping
rule to apply in the relevant conduct context, see USSG § 1B1.3 cmt. n. 5(A), but if
the Sentencing Commission intended this rule to apply to conduct with which the
defendant is not even charged, it would have so clarified. The grouping rule clearly
applies to “counts,” and thus by incorporating the grouping rule into the relevant
conduct guideline, the Sentencing Commission intended for courts to consider
closely-related counts that would have grouped had there been convictions. It is
completely nonsensical to read the grouping rule under the relevant conduct
guideline to include conduct that is not even charged and for which no one ever
has made even a probable cause determination.
3. The Factors Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) Support a Downward Variance.
a. Promoting Respect for the Law (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a))
Within two months of indictment, Mr. Siampwizi indicated to the
government that he was interested in resolving this case without trial. He had
significant information to share about others involved in his scheme of conviction
and other fraud schemes, and he has participated in two fulsome debriefs at the
government’s request. He has provided the government with documentary
evidence and other critical sources of information that presumably the
government will use to investigate others involved in schemes to defraud.
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 7 of 11
8
Despite this cooperation, the government is unwilling to move for a
downward departure for Mr. Siampwizi’s substantial assistance under USSG §
5K2.1. Presumably, the government intends to move for relief under Rule 35 if it
later determines that Mr. Siampwizi’s further assistance is needed in the
prosecution of other individuals, but he has no guarantee that could happen and—
with First Step Act credits—it is entirely possible he could have served his sentence
entirely before the government even makes charging decisions regarding other
individuals, much less requires his assistance at trial.
For this reason, this Court is empowered to acknowledge the need for
defendants like Mr. Siampwizi to take the risk—sometimes despite great concern
for personal safety—and aid law enforcement where they can. While a defendant’s
cooperation may not meet the government’s subjective standard of “substantial
assistance,” it is still behavior courts should want to acknowledge and encourage.
b. Personal History and Characteristics of the Defendant
Mr. Siampwizi bears significant financial responsibility for his three
children—two of whom will be in college while he serves his sentence and will be
impacted by his constrained ability to help with tuition and living expenses.
Despite his troubled past, Mr. Siampwizi is a hard worker and has built a
successful business since the Covid-19 pandemic, Global Group Development and
Construction, LLC (“GGDC”). The PSR and the government have taken the view
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 8 of 11
9
that his business ventures are all fraudulent, but they are not. Attached as Exhibit
A is a letter of support from Shanell Watson, the Business Development Manager
and Project Manager of GGDC. She describes Mr. Siampwizi’s role in the company
and how his leadership has impacted the company’s growth and the employees
working for that company. Attached as Exhibit B are several documents showing
the construction projects GGDC has engaged in and constitutes proof that he is
running a legitimate business.
The success of GGDC speaks to Mr. Siampwizi’s character for reasons that
go beyond just being a successful businessman. He is a successful businessman
who has a federal felony drug conviction, which is an obstacle that often proves
insurmountable for those trying to reenter society and build fruitful lives after
serving significant prison time for drug charges. He acknowledges that his road
since reentry has not been without stumbles. The financial challenges brought
about during the Covid-19 pandemic affected Mr. Siampwizi’s business as it did
many other small business owners, particularly those in the home construction
industry. And like many others who have been held to account for the decisions
they made during the pandemic, Mr. Siampwizi made some monumentally poor
decisions in trying to survive the financial drought.
But he weathered the pandemic and has built GGDC to be the successful
company it is today. He has put a business continuity plan in place so the company
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 9 of 11
10
continues to operate while he is incarcerated, but it will no doubt be impacted by
his absence. He asks this Court to recognize that the community is better served
by him being out of prison, working to pay his restitution, providing jobs to those
who have come to depend on him, and quite literally building for the better good
of this community.
For these reasons, Mr. Siampwizi urges this Court to find that a sentence of
18 months is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the important
sentencing goals outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) while not permanently crippling
the significant momentum he has worked hard to achieve.
Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of March, 2024.
By:/s/
Lynsey M. Barron
Lynsey M. Barron,
Ga. Bar No. 661005
BARRON LAW, LLC
1800 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 300
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Telephone (404) 276-3261
Email: lynsey@barron.law
Attorney for Austin Siampwizi
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 10 of 11
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the below date I electronically filed the foregoing
Defendant’s Sentencing Memorandum with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF
system which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the to the
following attorneys of record.
This 22nd day of March, 2024.
/s/ Lynsey M. Barron
By: Lynsey M. Barron
Ga. Bar No. 661005
Attorney for Austin Siampwizi
Case 1:23-cr-00246-WMR-RDC Document 35 Filed 03/22/24 Page 11 of 11File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gand.318618.35.0.pdf
- Size
- 218,949 bytes
- SHA-256
- dae72f67ee7ffa46f00509d7f5b8d7a3d25c2053fb13b1d8e50f3f118310e91a
- Original
- PACER (login required)