Court filing

Sentencing memorandum — U.S. v. Wade

Filed February 12, 2025 in U.S. v. Wade; one of 6 filings from this case.

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida
Filed	2025-02-12

U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 235 · 2025-02-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-60173-CR-KMW(s) (GRAHAM)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

CAROLYN DENISE WADE and
TRACY D. WADE,

Defendants.
/

UNITED STATES’ SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

I.
Introduction

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby submits this
sentencing memorandum as to Defendants Carolyn Denise Wade and Tracy D. Wade (each a
“Defendant” and collectively “Defendants”). Defendants are scheduled to be sentenced on
February 27, 2025, for their convictions resulting from the jury’s verdicts of guilty as to all counts
with which they were charged in the Superseding Indictment.1

For the reasons addressed herein, the United States respectfully recommends that the Court
sentence Tracy Wade to a 14-month term of imprisonment and sentence Carolyn Wade to a 10-
month term of imprisonment. The United States further recommends that the Court impose a 3-
year term of supervised release to follow each term of imprisonment, and order restitution in the
amount of $41,666 as to both Defendants joint and severally. Based upon the counts of
conviction, a $700 special assessment is mandatory as to Tracy Wade and a $600 special
assessment is mandatory as to Carolyn Wade.

1 On January 21, 2025, Defendants filed a stipulated motion for substitution of counsel (DE 230) and, based
thereon, an unopposed motion for a 30-day continuance of Defendants’ sentencing hearing (DE 231). The
Court granted both motions (DE 233).
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 1 of 18

The total sentences recommended by the United States are sufficient, but not greater than
necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth in Title 18, United States Code, Section
3553(a).
II.
Summary of the Offense2

This case involved two sworn law enforcement officers who fraudulently obtained loans
through the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) during the COVID-19 pandemic. From
approximately April 2021 through August 2021, while they were employed as Deputy Sheriffs
with the Broward Sheriff’s Office (BSO), Defendants committed serious conspiratorial and
substantive fraud offenses that resulted in their receipt and forgiveness of PPP loans based upon
information Defendants knew was patently false. Specifically, each Defendant received $20,833
(the maximum PPP loan available to a sole proprietor) from an SBA lender for a fake business
with fake tax documents. After Defendants received their fraudulent loan proceeds in their
personal bank accounts, Defendants wrote checks to themselves with phony memos for “payroll”
and “salary,” and made additional false statements to the SBA, all to avoid repaying the money
that they were never entitled to receive in the first place.
Applying for PPP loans and loan forgiveness was a multi-step process completed online.
In this case, most of the online processes occurred on the website of the PPP loan processor
(Womply), including creating the PPP application, inputting personal information, uploading bank
documents and tax documents, and verifying the applicant’s identity. The evidence at trial

2 The United States adopts and incorporates by reference all facts set forth in the Offense Conduct and Role
Assessment sections of the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR) as to Carolyn Wade (DE 222 ¶¶7-52)
and Tracy Wade (DE 224 ¶¶7-52). The government addressed many of those facts, and the evidence
admitted at trial that proved them beyond a reasonable doubt, in its response in opposition to Defendants’
post-verdict motion for a judgement of acquittal. See DE 207 at 4-11.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 2 of 18

established that Defendants started and completed nearly all those steps themselves. For example,
Tracy Wade created his PPP application and Carolyn Wade’s PPP application using the computer
and internet service at Wade Funeral Home; Tracy Wade inputted information into the
applications, including the fictitious sole proprietor business names “Tracy Wade” (for his
application) and “Carolyn Wade” (for hers); and each Defendant uploaded bank documents into
their respective applications, linked their bank accounts to receive the loan proceeds, and
independently verified their identities. Overall, Tracy Wade received 30 Womply login codes,
performed 17 successful logins to his PPP loan application (and 2 successful logins to Ms.
Wade’s), made 13 modifications to his PPP application (and 17 modifications to Ms. Wade’s),
uploaded 4 bank statements, and verified his identity twice. Carolyn Wade received 32 Womply
login codes, performed 11 successful logins to her PPP loan application, made 15 modifications,
uploaded 3 bank statements, and verified her identity twice.
The only component of the PPP loan application process that Defendants did not directly
accomplish themselves was the creation and submission of fake IRS Schedule C tax forms and
false income information therein. Defendants outsourced that part of the crime to co-conspirator
Haydee Rivero, f/k/a Haydee Granados (“Rivero”), and paid her $2,000 for doing so ($1,000 for
each fake Schedule C for each PPP application). Defendants’ PPP applications on Womply’s
website were accessible only using one-time, short-lived passcodes, which Defendants received
via email or text message and provided to Rivero so she could log in to Defendants’ applications
and upload the fake tax documents. After Rivero uploaded the fake Schedule C forms for each
Defendant (and inputted the fake income numbers), Rivero’s role in the PPP application process
for Defendants was finished.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 3 of 18

The last step of the PPP application process was to acknowledge and sign the actual PPP
loan application (SBA Form 2483-C) and related loan documents via DocuSign, which included
certifying that all the information provided in the application and all supporting documents was
true and accurate in all material respects. Each Defendant handled the DocuSign component of
their PPP applications themselves. Indeed, each Defendant opened, viewed, initialed and signed
their respective PPP loan applications and related loan documents via DocuSign on multiple
occasions on different days. Tracy Wade electronically initialed and signed 3 separate, but
identical, PPP loan applications (SBA Form 2483-C) and Carolyn Wade electronically initialed
and signed 2 separate, but identical, PPP loan applications (SBA Form 2483-C).
Tracy Wade received the proceeds of his PPP loan ($20,833) on June 3, 2021, and Carolyn
Wade received hers ($20,833) four days later (on June 7). Immediately upon receipt of each loan,
each Defendant sent $1,000 to Rivero via Zelle for having provided the fake tax documents for
their PPP loans. Over the next few days and weeks, Tracy Wade wrote 4 checks (totaling
$13,408) and Carolyn Wade wrote 10 checks (totaling $13,900) to fabricate payroll to themselves.
After doing so, Defendants applied to the SBA for forgiveness of their PPP loans. That process
involved another application (SBA Form 3508S) in which each Defendant falsely represented,
among other things, the number of employees they had for their fake sole proprietorships, the
amount of their PPP loans they had purportedly spent on payroll, and that they had complied with
all the PPP rules and regulations. Each Defendant initialed and signed their respective
forgiveness application (SBA Form 3508S). Based on that false information and false
certifications, the SBA forgave both of Defendants’ PPP loans totaling $41,666.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 4 of 18

III.
Procedural History

This prosecution began with an indictment returned by the Grand Jury on September 14,
2023 (DE 3), which charged only Carolyn Wade with one count of wire fraud in violation of Title
18, United States Code, Section 1343. Ms. Wade proceeded to trial on that indictment in May
2024 and the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict, resulting in a mistrial (DE 72).

On June 27, 2024, the Grand Jury returned the Superseding Indictment (DE 188), which
charged Defendants with the following offenses: conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of
Tile 18, United States Code, Section 1349; wire fraud, in violation of Tile 18, United States Code,
Section 1343; conspiracy to make false statements to the SBA, in violation of Tile 18, United
States Code, Section 371; and false statements to the SBA, in violation of Title 15, United States
Code, Section 645(a).
Trial commenced on October 7, 2024. In its case in chief, the government called 9
witnesses (DEs 172-175 &178) and introduced 152 exhibits into evidence (DE 191). At the close
of the government’s case in-chief, Defendants moved ore tenus for judgment of acquittal pursuant
to Rule 29. The Court heard argument and denied the motion (DE 178). Defendants then
presented a case in which they called 5 witnesses (DEs 178 & 180), including Defendant Tracy
Wade, and introduced 14 exhibits (DE 192). At the close of the defense case, Defendants renewed
their ore tenus Rule 29 motion. The Court heard additional argument and denied the motion
again.
The jury began to deliberate on October 22. On October 23, the jury returned verdicts of
guilty as to each Defendant on all counts with which they were charged, respectively (DEs 183
and 184). The Court adjudicated Defendants guilty consistent with the jury verdicts (DE 182),
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 5 of 18

deferred sentencing, and ordered presentence investigations. Defendants filed a post-verdict
motion for judgment of acquittal on November 6, 2024 (DE 204), which the Court denied in a
written Order entered on January 10, 2025 (DE 213).
The U.S. Probation Office (“Probation”) disclosed the draft PSRs as to Carolyn Wade and
Tracy Wade on December 17, 2024 (DE 209) and December 18, 2024 (DE 210), respectively.
Each Defendant filed written objections to their respective PSR on January 10, 2024 (DE 214 as
to Carolyn Wade and DE 215 as to Tracy Wade). The United States filed its responses to
Defendants’ objections on January 15, 2025 (DE 218 as to Carolyn Wade and DE 219 as to Tracy
Wade). Probation disclosed the PSRs with addendums on January 15, 2024 (DE 222 as to
Carolyn Wade and DE 224 as to Tracy Wade) and Defendants each filed a motion for a downward
variance requesting probationary sentences (DE 220 as to Carolyn Wade and DE 221 as to Tracy
Wade). As set forth below, the United States opposes a downward variance for each Defendant.
IV.
Sentencing Guidelines Computation
As computed by Probation in the PSRs as to Carolyn Wade (DE 222) and Tracy Wade (DE
224), the advisory sentencing range under the 2024 Guidelines Manual (“Guidelines”) for each
Defendant is 8-14 months’ imprisonment based upon a total offense level of 11 and a criminal
history category of I (zero criminal history points). The offense level is calculated as follows:
Base Offense Level (§ 2B1.1(a)(1))
7
The Defendants are accountable for a loss of at least $41,666. As the loss
is more than $40,000 and less than $95,000, the offense level is increased
by six levels, pursuant to § 2B1.1(b)(1)(D).
6
The Defendants meet the criteria at §§ 4C1.1(a)(1)-(10). Therefore, the
Defendants are Zero-Point Offenders, and the offense level is
reduced by two levels, §§ 4C1.1(a) and (b).
-2
Total Offense Level
11
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 6 of 18

The PSRs correctly compute the offense level for each Defendant. Defendant Tracy Wade
did not file an objection to this computation. Defendant Carolyn Wade objected to her offense
level computation, asserting that she should only be held responsible for the loss associated with
her fraudulent PPP loan of $20,833 (DE 214 at 3). However, as the United States explained in its
response to Carolyn Wade’s objections to her PSR, Probation has correctly calculated her loss
amount because a district court may hold participants in a conspiracy responsible for the losses
resulting from the reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy.
United States v. Moran, 778 F.3d 942, 974 (11th Cir. 2015). Here, in addition to the loss resulting
from Carolyn Wade’s fraudulently obtained PPP loan ($20,833), the loss resulting from co-
conspirator Tracy Wade’s fraudulently obtained PPP loan ($20,833) was in furtherance of the
conspiracy and foreseeable to Carolyn Wade based upon the evidence in the record and the jury’s
guilty verdict on the conspiracy offenses (Counts 1 and 4). Therefore, the Court should overrule
Carolyn Wade’s objection to paragraph 60 of the PSR and find that, like Tracy Wade, her total
offense level is 11.
V.
Consideration of Sentencing Factors Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a), enumerates several factors that the Court
must consider in sentencing a defendant. As addressed in turn below, the 3553(a) factors relevant
to each Defendant support the individual sentences recommended by the United States, that is, a
14-month term of imprisonment as to Tracy Wade and a 10-month term of imprisonment as to
Carolyn Wade, with each to be followed by a 3-year term of supervised release. These sentences
are sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 7 of 18

1.
Nature and Circumstances of the Offense.

A jury found Defendants guilty of every offense with which they were charged in the
Superseding Indictment—that is, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to
commit offenses against the United States, and false statements to the SBA. These are serious
felonies that Defendants committed over several months during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Moreover, their conduct harmed a program that Congress created in response to the pandemic to
help small business owners and their employees whose livelihoods were jeopardized by the
shuttering of business operations and cash flow. Indeed, the PPP was designed as a lifeline to
small business employees by protecting their paychecks. Funds for the PPP were limited, and the
legitimate demand for relief money quickly exceeded the available supply.
In 2021, Congress authorized additional funding for the PPP since the pandemic was far
from over. Defendants, then sworn law enforcement officers who were continuously employed
by BSO during the pandemic and received their BSO salaries uninterrupted, selfishly exploited
this declared national emergency, and the government’s response to it, by lying to get PPP loans
that they were not entitled to receive.
Furthermore, the nature of the offense involved Defendants performing multiple steps on
their own to cause the SBA to fund and forgive their fraudulent PPP loans. As established at trial,
Defendants’ fraudulent loans were not the result of a single click or one transaction. Rather,
Defendants applied for their fraudulent PPP loans by accessing their online applications numerous
times, inputting false business names and other false information, uploading bank statements,
verifying their identifies, certifying they were providing truthful information, and initialing and
signing multiple documents, multiple times, on multiple occasions. By contrast, Rivero’s part
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 8 of 18

was limited to creating and uploading the fictitious Schedule C for each Defendant’s application
after Defendants have provided her with the access codes to do so. For her part, each Defendant
paid Rivero $1,000 immediately upon receipt of their respective PPP loan.
After Defendants received their fraudulent PPP loans in their personal bank accounts, their
offense conduct continued by writing sham “payroll” and “salary” checks to themselves to
fabricate payroll. This too was not a single occurrence, but repeated actions by Defendants over
several days and weeks taken in anticipation of applying for forgiveness of their fraudulent PPP
loans. When Defendants applied for forgiveness in August 2021, they continued to lie to the SBA
by submitting additional false statements and false certifications that they initialed and signed,
including falsely representing that Defendants had been entitled to the loans in the first place.
Defendants made no effort to repay any of the fraudulently obtained money until after they were
convicted at trial.
For these reasons, the nature and circumstances of the offense supports the sentences
recommended by the United States for each Defendant.
2.
History and Characteristics of the Defendants.

A.
Tracy Wade
Tracy Wade is a college-educated, career law enforcement officer and business owner.
For 25 years (1997 to 2002), he served as a Deputy Sherriff for BSO. Following retirement from
BSO in 2022, he served as a police officer for the town of Pembroke Park, Florida. Additionally,
since 2011, he has owned and operated Wade Funeral Home. Given his education, training,
employment history and business experience, Tracy Wade certainly knew better than to lie to get
pandemic relief assistance for himself and his wife. Against this backdrop of success and
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 9 of 18

opportunity, Tracy Wade’s guilt in this case reflects a person motivated by shortsighted greed who
blatantly disregarded the law because he thought he would not get caught. His commission of
this crime when he was a sworn Deputy Sheriff also harms the public’s trust in law enforcement.
Tracy Wade has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct nor shown any remorse.
Notably, Tracy Wade was not only found guilty of crimes of dishonesty, he testified
untruthfully at both the May 2024 and October 2024 trials of this cause. In the first trial, before
he was a defendant, Tracy Wade falsely portrayed himself and his Carolyn Wade as unknowing
and naive victims who were duped by Rivero. He falsely told the jury that he did not know
Carolyn Wade’s PPP application contained false information until the night before she was
arrested, and he minimized his role in the application process by shifting the blame entirely on
Rivero and her husband. Examples of this included, but were not limited to, his testimony that he
“didn’t fill out anything” (DE 106 at 12), and that Rivero “had access to everything,” including his
email account and Carolyn Wade’s email account (DE 106 at 13, 19) and DocuSign (DE 106 at
19-20). He also testified that he did not have “any reason” to believe that Rivero was engaging
in some type of fraudulent behavior (DE 106 at 23). Yet, when confronted with the sham “salary”
checks written to him by Carolyn Wade, he concocted a story belied by common sense (DE 106
at 98-102).
Tracy Wade told these and other falsehoods in the second trial when he waived his right to
remain silent and exercised his right to testify as a defendant. Examples included, but were not
limited to, his testimony that he did not know the PPP applications contained false information
during the application process; that he had no discussion of any fraudulent activity with Rivero;
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 10 of 18

and that Rivero never mentioned a Schedule C (e.g., 10/21 Tr. at 8-9, 28-32, 83-84).3 He also
repeated the lies that he and Carolyn Wade gave Rivero access to their email accounts (e.g, 10/21
Tr. at 20-21), and even suggested that someone else at his home had signed his forgiveness
application via DocuSign (e.g., 10/21 Tr. at 119-120). The digital records, however, flatly
contradicted Tracy Wade’s testimony by establishing his and Carolyn Wade’s direct involvement
in the PPP loan and forgiveness application processes. When confronted with this evidence
during cross-examination, Tracy Wade was evasive and flip-flopped between accepting the
uncontroverted data as true (e.g., 10/21 Tr. at 68-70, 75-76, 80, 86) and suggesting someone else
could have been responsible for his actions (e.g., 10/22 Tr. at 9-11). Tracy Wade went so far as
to tell the jury that he had “hired a private investigator” during the overnight recess between the
second and third day of his testimony (10/22 Tr. at 7). Tracy Wade also maintained that the
“salary” memo in the checks he received from Carolyn Wade was an accurate description even
though he admitted he was never Carolyn Wade’s employee (10/22 Tr. at 24-25).
Moreover, in the second trial, the jury heard Tracy Wade testify after Rivero had testified
about the understanding she had with Defendants regarding her creation of fictitious Schedule C
forms for their PPP loan applications. Specifically, Rivero testified that, during a phone call with
Tracy Wade, she told him that to receive a PPP loan of $20,000, Rivero would need to create a
Schedule C that reflected $100,000 in gross income for a business in Tracy Wade’s own name
(that is, not for Wade Funeral Home). The jury’s guilty verdict on all counts reflects their finding
that Rivero was credible and Tracy Wade was not.

3 The cited excerpts of the transcript of Tracy Wade’s testimony on October 21, 2024 (“10/21 Tr.”) and
October 22, 2024 (“10/22 Tr.”) are filed herewith as attachments 1 and 2, respectively, since they are not
yet publicly available via PACER.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 11 of 18

In assessing the history and characteristics of Tracy Wade, the Court should also consider
that he sought from the SBA other forms of pandemic relief based on false information. As he
admitted on cross examination, Tracy Wade applied for an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL)
for Wade Funeral Home (10/22 Tr. at 50-52). However, the two separate sets of EIDL
applications for Wade Funeral Home, which Tracy Wade submitted in April and May 2020, each
overstated revenue and expenses of Wade Funeral Home by hundreds of millions of dollars. The
first EIDL application falsely stated that, for the 12-month period ending January 31, 2020, Wade
Funeral Home had $465 million in gross revenue and $175 million in costs of goods sold (PSR
¶135). The second EDIL application (which Tracy Wade submitted while the first was still
pending) falsely stated that, for that same period, Wade Funeral Home had $350 million in gross
revenue and $250 million in costs of goods sold (PSR ¶136). Because EIDL loans were calculated
based upon profit (revenue less expenses) and capped at $150,000, each one of these applications
for Wade Funeral Home sought the maximum EIDL available during the pandemic.
Tracy Wade further admitted on cross examination that he contacted the SBA multiple
times to check the status of these applications (10/22 Tr. at 55), but he did not correct the false
information in the applications until the SBA required him to supply a copy of Wade Funeral
Home’s 2019 tax return to substantiate the purported revenue and expenses. That tax return
reported revenue of $345,359 and expenses of $165,339, which entitled Wade Funeral Home to
an EIDL of $80,000 (roughly half of the maximum $150,000 EIDL he originally sought). Tracy
Wade testified that the false information in the two EIDL applications were typographical errors
(10/22 Tr. at 53-54). However, the likelihood of two separate sets of typographical errors,
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 12 of 18

submitted over a month apart and each inflating revenue and expenses by different amounts in the
hundreds of millions of dollars, is not credible.
The government also introduced at trial evidence of yet another PPP loan application for
Wade Funeral Home. Government Exhibit 2002 was an email with an attachment referencing a
completed loan application, dated May 6, 2021, for a PPP loan for Wade Funeral Home in the
amount of $701,873. When questioned about this application on cross examination and shown
the application documents, Tracy Wade denied knowing anything about it (10/22 Tr. at 40-42).
However, it is impossible to ignore the striking pattern in this case: five separate applications
seeking pandemic relief from the SBA in 2020 and 2021 in the names of Tracy Wade, Carolyn
Wade, and Wade Funeral Home, all of which contained materially false income information.
In sum, the history and characteristics of Tracy Wade, particularly his untruthful testimony
at two criminal trials and efforts to obtain additional pandemic relief for Wade Funeral Home
based upon false information, support the 14-month term of imprisonment sentence recommended
by the United States. This sentence is still within the advisory Guidelines range computed in the
PSR and thus accounts for his lack of criminal history.
B.
Carolyn Wade
Carolyn Wade is a college-educated, career law enforcement officer. For 21 years (2002
to 2023), she served as a Deputy Sherriff for BSO. Given her education, training, and
employment history, Carolyn Wade certainly knew better than to lie to get pandemic relief
assistance. Like her husband, this backdrop of success and opportunity shows that Carolyn Wade
was also motivated by shortsighted greed and blatantly disregarded the law because she too
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 13 of 18

thought she would not get caught. By committing this offense when she was a sworn Deputy
Sheriff, Carolyn Wade also harmed the public’s trust in law enforcement.
That said, the United States is recommending a lower sentence for Carolyn Wade compared
to her co-defendant husband primarily for two reasons. First, Carolyn Wade did not testify falsely
at either trial. Second, it does not appear that Carolyn Wade was involved with other fraudulent
applications for pandemic relief.
For these reasons, the history and characteristics of Carolyn Wade support the 10-month
term of imprisonment sentence recommended by the United States. This sentence is within the
advisory Guidelines range computed in the PSR and thus accounts for her lack of criminal history.
3.
Need for the Sentence to Reflect the Seriousness of the Offense, Promote
Respect for the Law, Provide Just Punishment, and Afford Adequate
Deterrence to Criminal Conduct.

As explained above, Defendants have committed serious offenses. Count 1 (conspiracy
to commit wire fraud) and Counts 2-3 (wire fraud) each carry a maximum term of imprisonment
of twenty years. The sentences recommended by the United States are needed to reflect the
seriousness of these offenses, promote respect for the law, and provide just punishment. Although
the recommended terms of imprisonment (14-months as to Tracy Wade and 10-months as to
Carolyn Wade) are toward the bottom of the overall sentencing table of the Guidelines, and
certainly modest in comparison to the maximum penalty under law, these sentences will still send
a message that stealing from government programs such as PPP has serious consequences. In this
respect, the sentence will also afford adequate general deterrence to this criminal conduct, which
is very much needed.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 14 of 18

The Eleventh Circuit has explicitly stated that “general deterrence is an important factor in
white-collar cases, where the motivation is greed.” United States v. Hayes, 762 F.3d 1300, 1308
(11th Cir. 2014); see also United States v. Howard, 28 F.4th 180, 209 (11th Cir. 2022) (noting that
“[g]eneral deterrence is more apt, not less apt, in white collar crime cases. The reason is that
economic and fraud-based crimes are more rational, cool and calculated than sudden crimes of
passion or opportunity, which makes them prime candidates for general deterrence.”) (internal
quotations and citations omitted).
As explained above, greed motivated Defendants to seek PPP loans when they were
nevertheless fully employed, and millions of other Americans had lost their jobs from the
economic impact of a global pandemic. As the pandemic spread, so too did fraud related to the
PPP and EIDL programs and other programs designed to provide critical economic assistance—
especially in the Southern District of Florida. The government’s recommended sentence of
imprisonment in this case is thus appropriate to provide both specific and general deterrence.
Such a sentence will send a clear message to Defendants and other offenders that there are serious
consequences for defrauding government relief programs. A downward variance in this case for
either Defendant would send the opposite message.
4.
Need to Avoid Unwarranted Sentence Disparities Among Defendants with
Similar Records Who Have Been Found Guilty of Similar Conduct.

In and around September and October 2023, the government initiated criminal cases in this
District against 17 former BSO sworn deputies whom the government alleged had fraudulently
obtained PPP loans. Except for these Defendants, and two others charged in separate cases, all
other defendants accepted responsibility and pleaded guilty. The two other former BSO
defendants who proceeded to trial were convicted and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. In
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 15 of 18

March 2024, a jury found former BSO Deputy Sheriff Stephanie Smith guilty of two counts of
wire fraud in connection with obtaining two fraudulent PPP loans (Case No. 23-60203-CR-Bloom
(Cohn)). She was sentenced to 7 months’ imprisonment. In June 2024, a jury found former
BSO Deputy Seriff Alexandra Acosta guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States, false
statements to the SBA, and wire fraud, all in connection with obtaining a fraudulent PPP loan
(Case No. 23-60170-CR-Scola). She was sentenced to 4 months’ imprisonment.
The sentences recommended by the United States will not create an unwarranted sentence
disparity among the other former BSO Deputy Sheriffs that have been sentenced thus far (or any
other similarly situated defendant). As noted, the former BSO defendants who were convicted at
trial received sentences that included terms imprisonment within the Guidelines range computed
in their respective case. The Guidelines in this case (8-14 months) are higher because the loss
resulting from the offense is greater. Furthermore, every former BSO defendant who received a
probationary sentence had accepted responsibility for their conduct by pleading guilty and, in some
instances, cooperating with the government. For example, Rivero’s sentence of 3 years’
probation was not only based upon a Guidelines range of 0-6 months’ imprisonment, but also the
Court granting a downward departure pursuant to Section 5K1.1 of the Guidelines based upon her
substantial assistance in the investigation and prosecution of other individuals, including Tracy
and Carolyn Wade.
By contrast, Tracy and Carolyn Wade did not accept responsibility for their crimes and did
not cooperate. Tracy Wade’s statement in his PSR (¶56) is notably unapologetic. Furthermore,
Defendants’ Guidelines range does not include zero months’ imprisonment, and no variance is
warranted for the reasons address above. Based on these distinguishing factors, as well as the
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 16 of 18

other factors addressed herein, the recommended sentences will not create an unwarranted
disparity.

VI.
Restitution

Restitution is mandatory in this case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). As set forth in
each PSR, restitution is owed to the SBA in the amount of $41,666 (Carolyn Wade PSR ¶ 116,
Tracy Wade PSR ¶ 128), which represents the amount of the unlawfully obtained PPP loans for
Carolyn Wade and Tracy Wade. On January 13, 2025, Defendant remitted this amount to the
Clerk of Court (DE 216). However, throughout this case, Defendants never disputed the fact that
their PPP loan applications contained false information and that they were not entitled to these
loans. Indeed, during cross examination, Tracy Wade acknowledged the blatantly false
information in the PPP loan applications for himself (10/21 Tr. at 54-63) and Carolyn Wade (10/22
Tr. at 4-6). Nevertheless, Defendants made no attempt to repay their ill-gotten gains until after
they were convicted. As such, the pre-payment of restitution in this case should not be considered
as a mitigating factor.

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank]
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 17 of 18

VII.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the United States respectfully recommends that the Court
sentence Defendant Tracy D. Wade to a term of imprisonment of 14 months, to be followed by
three years of supervised release, and sentence Defendant Carolyn Denise Wade to a term of
imprisonment of 10 months, to be followed by three years of supervised release. The United
States also requests that the Court order restitution in the amount of $41,666, and special
assessments of $700 as to Tracy Wade and $600 as to Carolyn Wade. These sentences are
sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to achieve the goals of sentencing set forth in Title 18,
United States Code, Section 3553(a).

Respectfully submitted,

HAYDEN P. O’BYRNE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: /s/ David A. Snider

David A. Snider
Assistant United States Attorney
Court ID No. A5502260
500 E. Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 660-5696
Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 235 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/12/2025 Page 18 of 18

File and source

File: United_States_v._Tracy_D._Wade__flsd_0-23-cr-60173__doc235__gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.235.0.pdf
Size: 209,257 bytes
SHA-256: 33786524c59645be527a1d75a0049736a0d19f1a6705f5fc0835d985cd9cf5e8
Our copy: United_States_v._Tracy_D._Wade__flsd_0-23-cr-60173__doc235__gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.235.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)

Sentencing memorandum — U.S. v. Wade

Record facts

Full text

File and source

Related records