Court filing
Government's sentencing memorandum — United States v. Tucker
Filed May 29, 2025 in U.S. v. Tucker; one of 5 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (Southern Division) |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-29 |
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
No. 1:24-cr-167
vs.
Hon. Paul L. Maloney
United States District Judge
SHAKAYLA LORRENE TUCKER,
Defendant.
________________________________
/
GOVERNMENT’S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
May it please the Court, the United States submits the following
memorandum for the Court's reference in determining an appropriate sentence:
1.
Facts and Procedural History:
The facts are correctly detailed in the Offense Conduct section of the
Presentence Report (R. 35: PSR, PageID.90-91.) They are summarized briefly here
for the Court’s convenience:
In May 2021, the defendant’s sister Shakeena filed for personal bankruptcy.
After Shakeena provided suspicious answers about her undisclosed receipt of a
Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan, the Trustee referred the matter to the
Department of Justice further investigation. During the course of that
investigation, it was discovered that other members of Shakeena’s family (including
defendant Tucker) had also filed for PPP loans. The FBI discovered that Tucker had
lied on an application for a PPP loan; falsely claiming that she had a business, and
would use the money for payroll and other expenses during the COVID pandemic.
Case 1:24-cr-00167-PLM ECF No. 36, PageID.107 Filed 05/29/25 Page 1 of 4
2
Tucker used the $20,832.00 proceeds for personal purchases. (PSR ¶ 14, PageID.90.)
Tucker later filed for a second PPP loan under the same false pretenses, and was
granted another $20,832.00. (PSR ¶ 16, PageID.90.)
The Department of Labor, Office of the Inspector General (DOL-OIG) further
discovered that Tucker had defrauded the Indiana Department of Workforce
Development (IDWD)1 during the same time general time frame. In an application
filed in November 2020, she falsely represented that she had been laid off during
the COVID pandemic by “Chicken and Fish, Inc.” a restaurant in South Bend. DOL-
OIG suspected the application might be false, because Tucker was collecting
unemployment compensation from the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency
at the same time.
When interviewed, the operator of Chicken and Fish, Inc. reported that he
had never closed the restaurant or laid off any employees during the pandemic. He
also said he had never employed or heard of Shakayla Tucker. He inspected the
“pay stub” submitted by Tucker with her unemployment application, and advised
that it was a forgery. An actual pay stub from the restaurant was produced, which
was different in form.
As a result of her fraudulent representations, the defendant obtained a total
of $69,051 from the SBA2 and IDWD. (PSR ¶ 29, PageID.92.)
1 The IDWD is Indiana’s equivalent of the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency.
2 It should be noted that ¶ 29 of the PSR appends the abbreviation “EIDL” after the payee. This should read “PPP,”
as Tucker defrauded the Paycheck Protection Program, not the Economic Injury Disaster Loan program.
Case 1:24-cr-00167-PLM ECF No. 36, PageID.108 Filed 05/29/25 Page 2 of 4
3
2.
Guideline Issues: There are no disputed Guideline issues.
3.
Statutory Sentencing Factors:
The Court is required to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. In
determining the particular sentence to be imposed, the court must consider, among
other things:
a.
The nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1)):
The defendant defrauded programs intended to alleviate economic hardships,
including during a nationwide pandemic. While the offense was not violent, it was
selfish. She has two scorable prior convictions, neither of which involved a serious
offense.
b.
The need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the
offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just
punishment for the offense (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A)):
The money lost by the treasury does not entirely capture the seriousness of
the offense. Working people pay unemployment insurance and other payroll taxes to
support programs like UI and PPP, so that support will be available if they are laid
off. When those programs are defrauded, it undermines public confidence and
makes them attractive targets for elimination. To her credit, Tucker recognized that
“[her] choices do not just affect me but can also impact others who rely on these
financial assistance programs.” (PSR, PageID.93.)
Case 1:24-cr-00167-PLM ECF No. 36, PageID.109 Filed 05/29/25 Page 3 of 4
4
c.
The need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence
to criminal conduct (18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B)):
Emergency aid programs necessarily prioritize accessibility at the expense of
security. The primary safeguard is the penalty for perjury, which must follow when
an applicant is caught lying. The sentence here should be sufficient to make the risk
outweigh the potential reward, and deter others from attempting the same schemes.
For the foregoing reasons, the government requests the Court impose a
sentence within the advisory guideline range.
Respectfully submitted,
ANDREW BYERLY BIRGE
Acting United States Attorney
Dated: May 29, 2025
/s/ Nils R. Kessler
NILS R. KESSLER
Assistant United States Attorney
330 Ionia Ave. NW
Grand Rapids, Michigan 49503
(616) 456-2404
Case 1:24-cr-00167-PLM ECF No. 36, PageID.110 Filed 05/29/25 Page 4 of 4File and source
- File
- doc-036-2025-05-29-Govt-Sentencing-Memo-Tucker.pdf
- Size
- 137,765 bytes
- SHA-256
- a217d91dc7131c98d21becd5fd5746e40d8655de9571abc99476b07e216f9748
- Original
- No public link identified.