Sentencing Memorandum of Denesseria Slaton — United States v. Denesseria Slaton (N.D. Ga.)

Record facts

Full text

1 
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )  
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
Plaintiff, 
 
)  
CRIMINAL ACTION NO.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 1:21 – CR – 179-JPB 
 
 
 
 
 
 
) 
 
DENESSERIA SLATON A/K/A 
) 
DENESSERIE SLATON, 
) 
 
) 
 
 
 
 
Defendant         ) 
 
          
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF DENESSERIA SLATON 
COMES NOW, Denesseria Slaton, by and through her undersigned 
counsel of record, and respectfully files this sentencing memorandum for 
the Court’s consideration. 
INTRODUCTION 
Denesseria Slaton appeared before Honorable John K. Larkins, III for a 
Waiver of Indictment and Arraignment hearing on May 17, 2021.  On 
June 16, 2021, Ms. Slaton entered a written, negotiated plea of guilty to 
the sole count of Criminal Information Number 1:21-CR-179-JPB 
charging her with Conspiracy to Commit Bank Fraud and Wire Fraud.  
The Presentence Report (PSR) which has established the total adjusted 
offense level at 23, Criminal History Category III, with a custody 

2 
 
guideline range of 57 - 71 months.  Ms. Slaton has filed objections to the 
PSR.  Ms. Slaton requests the opportunity to address her objections, 
grounds for departure and variance as discussed below. 
I. 
GUIDELINE CALCULATIONS 
A. 
THE COURT SHOULD SUSTAIN MS. SLATON’S 
OBJECTION TO THE USSG §3B1.1(B) ADJUSTMENT 
FOR HER ROLE IN THE OFFENSE. 
 
 
The Presentence Investigation Report for Ms. Denesseria Slaton 
(hereinafter “PSR”) incorrectly adds a three-level adjustment pursuant to 
USSG §3B1.1(B).  The PSR states that Ms. Slaton was a manager or 
supervisor and the criminal activity involved five or more participants or 
was otherwise extensive.  We concede that the criminal activity at hand 
involved five or more participants, but dispute the allegation that Ms. 
Slaton was a manager or supervisor.  The facts in the case centered around 
Darrell Thomas and his scheme to fraudulently obtain money and via the 
Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”).  Thomas used Slaton to help 
perpetuate his scheme by positioning her as someone he could use as a 
buffer between himself and business owners looking to profit from the 
fraud.  As the PSR states in Paragraph 33, “Slaton facilitated these PPP 
loans by acting as the middle-woman between the business owners and 
Thomas.”  PSR ¶ 33.  At the direction of Thomas, business owners who 

3 
 
were looking to receive illicit funds from his PPP scheme would send 
documents and information to Slaton and she would provide them to 
Thomas.  After the loans were funded, Ms. Slaton would receive 
additional instruction from Thomas about how the loan proceeds were to 
be disbursed and she would pass along that information to the business 
owners.  Slaton would then receive a portion of the proceeds from each 
loan that she helped facilitate, but less than Thomas and the 
aforementioned business owners.     
In United States v. Rodriguez, 805 F. App'x 773 (11th Cir. 2020), 
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently confronted the issue of 
whether a defendant was a manager or supervisor under USSG 3B1.1(b). 
In assessing a defendant's role, the appellate court considered the 
following factors: (1) whether they exercised decision-making authority, 
(2) the nature of their participation in the commission of the offense, (3) 
whether they recruited accomplices, (4) whether they claimed a right to a 
larger share of the fruits of the crime, (5) their degree of participation in 
planning or organizing the offense, (6) the nature and scope of the illegal 
activity, and (7) the degree of control and authority they exercised over 
others. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4. This multi-factor analysis requires a 
district court to decide on a "case-by-case basis," under the totality of the 

4 
 
circumstances, whether the enhancement should apply. See United 
States v. Ramirez, 426 F.3d 1344, 1356 (11th Cir. 2005). There is no 
requirement that all the considerations have to be present for the 
enhancement to be applied. Id.  As a factual basis for the three-level 
adjustment, the PSR lays out facts in paragraphs 33 through 36 that 
allegedly support the USSG §3B1.1(B) enhancement.  We submit that 
these facts show quite the opposite. 
1.  Exercising decision making authority 
Ms. Slaton did not exercise decision making authority in her role in 
the offense.  There is no indication in the PSR or in any of the evidence 
that Ms. Slaton made decisions on how the PPP scheme was to be 
perpetuated.  All of the evidence supports that Ms. Slaton acted at the 
direction of Darrell Thomas.  This factor does not support an 
enhancement. 
2. Nature of Ms. Slaton’s participation in commission of 
the offense 
 
As stated above, Ms. Slaton was primarily used as an intermediary 
between Darrell Thomas and the business owners he conspired with to 
take out fraudulent PPP loans.  If Darrell Thomas had been a loan officer 
processing legitimate loans, Ms. Slaton would have been akin to his 
secretary or assistant.  He used Ms. Slaton to retrieve documents from the 

5 
 
business owners, pass information back and forth, and keep the business 
owners up to date on the progression of the scheme.  Nevertheless, 
Thomas took all necessary steps either himself or with other co-
conspirators to actually create, manipulate, falsify, and/or alter documents 
for the submission and processing of loans.  Ms. Slaton was not part of 
this integral part of the scheme.  This factor does not support an 
enhancement. 
3. Recruitment of accomplices 
Although not referenced in the PSR, it is anticipated the 
Government will argue that Ms. Slaton actively recruited accomplices to 
participate in Thomas’ scheme.  Out of the three loans that Ms. Slaton 
participated in, she played a part in informing one business owner, 
Charles Hill, of Darrell Thomas’ plan to prepare and submit PPP loans.  It 
is worth noting that Charles Hill and Darrell Thomas were already 
acquaintances and had done some sort of business together prior to this 
scheme.  There is no evidence that Ms. Slaton played a similar role for the 
other loans that she was involved in submitting.  This factor alone should 
not support a USSG §3B1.1(B) enhancement. 
4. Right to Larger Share of Fruits of Crime 
Ms. Slaton was involved in the funding of three fraudulent PPP 

6 
 
loans.  It was alleged in the evidence that Slaton was to receive 10% of the 
proceeds for her involvement in the loans that she helped facilitate. The 
other 90% was to be split between Darrell Thomas (50%) and the business 
owners submitting the applications (40%). The PSR in paragraph 34 
states, “the lenders approved the PPP loans for Transportation 
Management in the amount of $830,417, Continuing Success in the 
amount of $727,000, and Infinite Education in the amount of $854.805.”  
This amount totals $2,406,222.  PSR Para. 38.  For Ms. Slaton’s role in 
the scheme, she received a total at least $270.000.00 for her role in all 
three loans.  PSR Para. 34.  This amount totals approximately 11% of the 
fruits of the scheme for Ms. Slaton, close to the 10% alleged in the 
evidence.  The other approximately 89% of the proceeds went to the 
business owners and Darrell Thomas.  Using the facts provided in the 
PSR, it’s clear that Ms. Slaton received a much smaller share of the 
proceeds than her co-conspirators.  This factor does not support an 
enhancement. 
5. Degree of Participation in Planning or Organizing 
The evidence does not support that Ms. Slaton participated in any 
degree of planning or organizing in the conspiracy to defraud the lenders.  
There is no indication in the PSR or in any of the evidence that Ms. Slaton 

7 
 
made decisions on how the PPP scheme was to be perpetuated.  Again, all 
of the evidence supports that Ms. Slaton acted at the direction of Darrell 
Thomas as he was the architect of the scheme.  The business owners were 
asked to forward documents to Ms. Slaton and she forwarded those 
documents to Darrell Thomas.  Key plans that were integral to the fraud 
such as determining the amount of money sought for each loan, presenting 
the number of employees on payroll, and which documents to alter for 
submission were done without her counsel and participation. This factor 
does not support an enhancement. 
6. Nature and Scope of Illegal Activity 
The conspiracy at hand involved a fairly complex plan to submit 
altered documents, records, and false applications to take advantage of 
lenders.  The scheme involved several corrupted business owners 
scheming with one another to profit off of the Paycheck Protection 
Program.  Ms. Slaton was used by Darrell Thomas to serve as a buffer or 
“middle woman” between the corrupted business owners so he would 
have arguable less exposure to detection.  The steps that Ms. Slaton took 
to facilitate the conspiracy were not even necessary for the scheme to 
profit as she was primarily a channel for communication.  As referenced 
in some other sections of this memorandum, Ms. Slaton’s work in the 

8 
 
conspiracy was almost secretarial.   
7. Degree of Control and Authority Exercised over 
Others 
 
This is arguably the most significant factor in considering whether 
or not a defendant should receive an enhancement for their role in a 
criminal conspiracy or enterprise.  The vast majority of the courts focus 
their analysis on this factor over all others as this factor seems to represent 
a core reason for USSG §3B1.1(B) enhancements.  For the USSG 
§3B1.1(B) enhancement to apply, the defendant must exert "some degree 
of control, influence, or leadership" in the criminal conspiracy. United 
States v. Ndiaye, 434 F.3d 1270, 1304 (11th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation 
marks omitted).  "The mere status of a middleman or a distributor does 
not support enhancement under Section 3B1.1 for being a supervisor, 
manager, or leader. Id.  "[T]here must be evidence that the defendant 
exerted some control, influence, or decision-making authority over 
another 
participant 
in 
the 
criminal 
activity." United 
States 
v. Martinez, 584 F.3d 1022, 1026 (11th Cir. 2009). 
 
The facts of this case do support an enhancement for this factor.  
There was no one subordinate to Ms. Slaton in this case.  She was at the 
bottom of the totem pole.  Ms. Slaton had contact with three business 
owners seeking to do business with Darrell Thomas, but they were not her 

9 
 
subordinates.  She had no control, influence or decision making authority 
over them.  Ms. Slaton was used by the business owners to get documents 
to Darrell Thomas and Darrell Thomas used Ms. Slaton as pawn to 
facilitate his scheme.  The business owners were customers of Darrell 
Thomas and Ms. Slaton was their point of contact.  The context of this 
relationship does not support her as a “manager or supervisor.”  She was 
the point of contact for this enterprise much like a distributor or seller is a 
point of contact in a drug organization.  See United States v. Glinton, 154 
F.3d 1245, 1260 (11th Cir. 1998) (noting in reviewing a Guideline 
3B1.1(c) enhancement based on the defendant's "managerial role " that 
"[a] mere buyer/seller relationship is not a sufficient basis to assess a 
managerial enhancement "); see also United States v. Jenkins, 742 F. 
App'x 455, 457 (11th Cir. 2018) (citing Glinton for this proposition in 
reviewing a Guideline 3B1.1(b) enhancement) ; Jiminez, 224 F.3d at 
1251 (Defendant "correctly notes that being a drug supplier does not 
automatically make him a 'supervisor' under the Guidelines.").  
 
It is anticipated that the Government will argue that Ms. Slaton 
supervised the activities of the conspiracy by passing information and 
communicating back and forth with her co-conspirators.  They may even 
argue that she directed the business   owners to provide her with 

10 
 
documents or take steps to further the conspiracy.   However, the fact that 
a person in his interaction with another person may, at times, direct the 
other to do something is not necessarily indicative of control or authority--
and, in particular, as to the criminal activity at issue. The giving of a 
direction may be merely incidental or casual to the relationship and not 
indicative of the overall relationship, and, in particular, it may not show 
that one person was in charge of or exercised authority over another in the 
criminal activity. The "degree of control and authority," as well as their 
nature, is important. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. n.4.  Ms. Slaton was the go 
between for Darrell Thomas and the customers of his criminal enterprise.  
The fact that Ms. Slaton in her role had to pass along information or 
instructions does not mean she had authority over the person to whom she 
was giving the information or instructions.  As a point of persuasion, a 
line of cases of out the 7th Circuit have distinctly held that customers are 
subordinates for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1.  See U.S. v. Reneslacis, 
349 F.3d 412, 417 (7th Cir. 2003) (rejecting argument that customers were 
subordinates) See United States v. Mustread,42 F.3d 1097, 1104-05 (7th 
Cir. 1994); United States v. McGuire, 957 F.2d 310, 316 (7th Cir. 1992) 
(customers are not "employees" or "subordinates"). As Ms. Slaton did not 
have a degree of authority or control over any of the customers of Darrell 

11 
 
Thomas, this factor does not support an enhancement. 
B. 
THE COURT SHOULD CONSIDER MS. SLATON’S 
FOR A MINOR ROLE ADJUSTMENT UNDER USSG 
§3B1.2(B) 
 
Ms. Slaton was minor participant in the criminal activity and should 
receive a two-level minor role adjustment under USSG § 3B1.2(b).  Ms. 
Slaton was involved in an intricate conspiracy that was orchestrated by 
Darrell Thomas and his associates.  This conspiracy involved over twenty 
one co-conspirators, various shell companies, and bank fraud.  Ms. Slaton 
was a participant in a minority of the transactions and in contrast to others, 
only had the role of receiving and delivering documents and information 
for Darrell Thomas. 
II. 
REQUESTS FOR DEPARTURE AND VARIANCE 
 
A. 
THE COURT SHOULD GRANT A VARIANCE FROM 
THE GUIDELINE RANGE BASED ON MS. SLATON’S 
COOPERATION AND THE GOVERNMENTS 
MOTION FOR A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE 
 
Ms. Slaton played a key part in assisting the government and case 
agents in uncovering and understanding the widespread PPP scheme that 
took place in this case. Ms. Slaton cooperated with the authorities shortly 
after she was contacted by the government and  communicated her 
knowledge of how the various schemes worked as well who was 

12 
 
potentially involved in the schemes.  Ms. Slaton has continued to 
cooperate with the authorities and is open to any assistance that may be 
needed in future prosecutions. 
The government has indicated that a § 5K1.1 motion for substantial 
assistance will filed with the court.  Ms. Slaton requests that the court 
accept this motion for substantial assistance and consider a reduction 
greater than what the government has suggested based on her level of 
cooperation to date and future ongoing cooperation. 
WHEREFORE, Ms. Slaton respectfully asks this Honorable Court 
to consider this pleading prior to imposing sentence. 
 
This the 4th day of April, 2022. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
_________/S/______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Nathan E. Fitzpatrick 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Georgia Bar Number 193119 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Ms. Slaton 
 
Fitzpatrick Firm, LLC 
14 Lenox Pointe 
Atlanta, Georgia 30324 
678-607-5550; Fax: 678-367-0101 
nate@atlantasattorneys.com 

13 
 
 
 
Certificate of Service 
 
I hereby certify that I have this day, I electronically transmitted the 
attached SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF DENESSERIA SLATON 
in compliance with LR 5.1B to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF 
system for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the 
following CM/ECF registrants: 
 
TAL C. CHAIKEN 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 273949 
 
NATHAN P. KITCHENS 
Assistant United States Attorney 
Georgia Bar No. 263930 
  
600 U.S. Courthouse 
75 Ted Turner Drive SW 
Atlanta, GA 30303 
404-581-6000; Fax: 404-581-6181 
 
 
  SIJI MOORE 
Trial Attorney, Fraud Section 
U.S. Department of Justice 
N.Y. Bar No. 4803607 
  
1400 New York Ave, NW 

14 
 
Bond Building, 11th Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 
202-514-2000; Fax: 202-514-3708

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.290398.22.0.pdf

Size

209,376 bytes

SHA-256

b50eed20b11123eed1c553d7309ce3bc3df7a7b12216c2c06f00105d3443b5af

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.290398.22.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)