Defendant's Sentencing Memorandum — United States v. Edrica Leann Watson (M.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida · No. 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH · Doc. 44 · 2022-06-08 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
FORT MYERS DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v.  
Case No. 2:21-cr-107-SPC-MRM 
 
EDRICA WATSON 
_________________/ 
 
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM 
Edrica Watson, through counsel, hereby files this memorandum in support 
of a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 
sentencing.  In furtherance of that effort, Ms. Watson respectfully submits that a 
downward variance is warranted in this case.  See PSR ¶ 98.  Although, Ms. 
Watson scores in Zone D with an advisory guideline range of 21 to 27 months, 
followed by a period of supervised release of not more than five years, see PSR ¶¶ 
83, 85, for the reasons presented in the PSR and in this  memorandum, it is 
respectfully submitted that a sentence of time served followed by a term of 
supervised release is sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals 
of sentencing.1   
 
1 Under the parsimony principle at 18 U.S.C. § 3553, the goal of sentencing “is to lock in 
a sentence that is not too short and not too long, but just right to serve the purposes of § 
3553(a).”  United States v. Irey, 612 F.2d 1160, 1197 (11th Cir. 2010) (en banc) cert. 
denied 563 U.S. 917 (2011).  See United States v. Johnson, 635 F.3d 983, 989 (7th Cir. 
2011) (parsimony provision must account for individual circumstances of each 
defendant); United States v. Olhovsky, 562 F.3d 530, 549, 550, 552 (3rd Cir. 2009) (citing 
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 52 (2007)). 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 1 of 22 PageID 183

2 
1. 
The offense, the prelude to the offense & cooperation   
(1)(A). 
Offense Conduct  
Ms. Watson immediately told investigating agents “that she established 
Unity Home Care Services LLC and that she applied for a PPP loan.”  See PSR ¶ 
23.  On September 9, 2020, 2  Ms. Watson incorporated Unity Home Care 
Services, LLC, with a principal address and mailing address provided by an 
unindicted confederate: 12553 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite V-25, in Fort Myers, 
Florida.  See PSR ¶ 15.  Although the New Brittany address was also an address 
of the unindicted confederate who created all of the fraudulent documentation and 
pocketed practically all of the fraudulent proceeds, this September 9, 2020, 
incorporation proved to be a momentous event in Ms. Watson’s life.  Referring to 
Paragraph 14 of the PSR: 
The USSS reviewed confidential documents that led to an 
investigation into multiple businesses using the same principal 
address of 12553 New Britney Boulevard, Suite V-25, in Fort Myers, 
Florida. This address was found to be an opus virtual office that was 
contracted and paid for by an unindicted individual, L.P., for a co-
owned venture with his wife, Parker Management Professionals LLC. 
Upon further investigation, USSS agents observed that the same 
employees were listed under the multiple businesses associated with 
this address. One of the businesses was Unity Home Care Services 
LLC. 
 
This unindicted individual -- L.P. -- was also the registered owner of one of 
the illegitimate contractors in this criminal scheme as well as the individual who 
 
2 Ms. Watson pleaded guilty to making a false statement to a lending institution almost 
seven months later -- on April 2, 2021 -- in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014.  See Docs. 29 at 
pgs. 20-21; 35 at pgs. 20-21; 36 & 37. 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 2 of 22 PageID 184

3 
exclusively withdrew illegitimate payroll via ATM trans-actions from the Unity 
Home Care account.  See PSR ¶ 21.  In addition, L.P.: 
• via checks drawn on the Unity Home Care Services account, accepted 
fraudulently obtained funds in the amount of $27,525 and his 
unindicted wife accepted fraudulently obtained funds in the amount 
of $16,740. “None of these transactions were traced to pay-roll, 
mortgage interest, or utilities as part of the PPP program.” (PSR ¶ 22). 
 
• provided all of the bogus documentation used to fraudulently obtain 
the PPP loan. (PSR ¶ 23). 
 
• “provided Watson with a hand written script instructing her what to 
tell the bank in an attempt to have the funds unfrozen. L.P. also 
provided an envelope containing documents for Watson to provide to 
 
the bank in an attempt to show the bank that the funds were 
needed for the employees. Watson advised that, until then, she had 
not seen anything regarding payroll or the employees. The envelope 
with documents was located during the search and seized by the 
USSS.” (PSR ¶ 26). 
 
• wrote a complaint to the Federal Reserve in an endeavor to unfreeze 
the bank account for Unity Home Care Services.  
(PSR ¶ 27). 
 
In the end, the United States Office of Probation reasons at PSR ¶ 98 that 
while Edrica Watson is an average participant in her crime:  
[S]he is being held accountable to $392,563, entirely.  Additionally, 
the defendant had a relationship with L.P. and he was influential to 
her. The defendant’s motivation was to provide a house for her family.  
 
Endorsing this observation, the presentence report reveals L.P. has 
contaminated Edrica Watson’s life for over three decades. 
Ms. Watson was raised in a housing development, the child of a single, 15-
year-old.  See PSR ¶ 59.  Six years before any ability to benefit from the example 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 3 of 22 PageID 185

4 
of any male role model3 – a nine-year-old Edrica Watson became acquainted with 
L.P. though his romantic involvement with Ms. Watson’s maternal aunt.  See PSR 
¶ 34.  About 20 years later – and almost a decade before the offense conduct 
presented herein – L.P. turned his attention to  Ms. Watson: making her car 
payments and completing her taxes in the immediate aftermath of the father of her 
two children 4  receiving a 15-year term of incarceration with the Florida 
Department of Corrections.  See PSR ¶¶ 34, 60.  Time passed.  And L.P’s 
propositions intensified.  “L.P. later came back into the defendant’s life, and he 
asked her if she was still wanting to start her home health aide business.”  See PSR 
¶ 34.  “Watson advised that while she created the Unity Home Care Services LLC, 
prior to the commencement of this offense, she planned to someday operate this 
business.”  See PSR ¶ 25.  “L.P. spoke to the defendant about helping her 
purchase a house.5 L.P. had discussions with the defendant regarding the fact that 
 
3 Ms. Watson’s father had no place in her life until Ms. Watson was 15 years old.  See 
PSR ¶ 56. 
 
4 Ms. Watson’s children are currently 10 and nine years old.  PSR ¶ 60.  When Mr. 
Moore began his prison sentence and L.P. intervened in Ms. Watson’s life, her children 
were only one-year and five-months old. 
5 Precisely because Ms. Watson was saving the money to purchase a house, she consumed 
neither the $20,832 in illicit funds that L.P. deposited into her personal bank account (see 
PSR ¶ 24) nor the illicit cash she received from L.P and stored in her residential safe (see 
PSR ¶¶ 24, 26).  Two related points merit attention.  First, L.P. told Ms. Watson he had 
provided her $50,000 in cash.  See PSR ¶ 26.  He was off by more than half – federal 
agents seized only $23,750 from Ms. Watson’s safe.  See page 2 of Return relating to the 
search of Ms. Watson’s residence in Case No. 2:21-MJ-1182-MRM annexed hereto as 
“Exhibit A.”  Second, Ms. Watson consumed not a cent of the criminally-acquired 
money was consumed for personal use: “USSS agents acknowledged that a review of 
Watson’s personal bank account confirmed that her monthly expenses were made 
through her employment income.”  See PSR ¶ 28. 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 4 of 22 PageID 186

5 
she was a minority and that it would be difficult for her, so he was willing to help 
her.”  See PSR ¶ 34.  “During her discussions with L.P., Watson was told that she 
could obtain money for her and her children.”  See PSR ¶ 24.  Eventually, L.P. 
and Ms. Watson were engaged in “a romantic relationship.”  See PSR ¶ 34.6  “The 
defendant trusted L.P., but she ultimately realized what was happening, and she 
takes full responsibility for her actions.”  Id.  More specifically, Paragraph 24 of 
the PSR reports: “Watson advised that at first she did not know for certain that 
what they were doing was illegal, but she eventually knew it was illegal, and she 
continued with her participation.”  See PSR ¶ 24.  According to Paragraph 25 of 
the PSR: 
Watson advised that L.P. had her personal information because he 
previously did her income taxes, and he knew her social security 
number and date of birth.  Watson stated that L.P. used her 
information to fill out the PPP loan application, and then he provided 
her with the application to digitally initial, sign, and submit.  Watson 
reported that L.P., with the assistance of his friend, created the 
supporting documents that were submitted to Customers Bank. 
 
As referenced in Footnote 5, supra, details as to the allocation of the spoils 
of this criminal enterprise left much to be desired – at least from the perspective 
of Ms. Watson: she ended up with a total draw of less than $45,000, all of which 
was recovered by law-enforcement.  See also PSR at  Footnote 1.  From the 
negotiated checks that Ms. Watson wrote from the Unity Home Care account at 
L.P.’s direction, she was supposed to get a portion.  See PSR ¶ 26.  But L.P. 
 
6 Additionally, PSR ¶ 98 notes “the defendant had a relationship with L.P. and he was 
influential to her.” 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 5 of 22 PageID 187

6 
reneged.  Id.  And although L.P. was exploitative7 and inconsistent, Ms. Watson 
was not: as presented in Footnote 5, supra, because whatever loot L.P. deemed 
adequate to provide Edrica Watson went precisely for a residential down payment, 
none of that loot was expended and all of it was recovered.  Indeed: 
Watson was told that she could obtain money for her and her children. 
Watson stated that she asked L.P. if she could get into trouble for this, 
and he told her that it was going to be a loan. L.P. raised Watson’s 
comfort level. Watson advised that at first, she did not know for 
certain that what they were doing was illegal, but she eventually knew 
it was illegal, and she continued with her participation.  PSR ¶ 24. 
 
As stated at PSR ¶ 40, Ms. Watson is an average participant in this case.  
Further, if there was a basis for a mitigating-role adjustment, Ms. Watson would 
have the burden to prove it.  See, e.g., United States v. Alaniz, 148 F.3d 929, 937 
(8th Cir. 1998).  On the other hand -- and precisely as advanced at PSR ¶ 98 -- the 
inability to secure a downward adjustment under USSG § 3B1.2 does nothing to 
vitiate the ability to secure a downward variance on the basis of disparate offense 
conduct and/or culpability.  See, e.g., United States v. Smart, 518 F.3d 800, 810 
(10th Cir. 2008). 
(1)(B). 
Cooperation 
As presented in the opening of Part (1)(A) of this memo, Mr. Watson’s 
cooperation with the authorities was immediate.  See PSR ¶ 23.  She has taken 
 
7  Ironically, it appears that L.P.’s greatest exposure to detection and arrest was his 
decision to locate this and numerous other criminal ventures to the same address as at 
least one of his business enterprises.  See Pages 2-3, supra.  As to exposure for the 
specific PPP fraud at bar, however, L.P. set a course to ensure that Edrica Watson, and 
only Edrica Watson, was evidentiarily marooned – the sitting duck now held exclusively 
responsible for the $392,563 restitution.  See PSR ¶ 98. 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 6 of 22 PageID 188

7 
full responsibility for her actions, advising the probation office that she is sorry for 
her involvement in this criminal venture and that she is sorry she has hurt her 
family through this involvement as well as the potential collateral consequence of 
losing her nursing license.  See PSR ¶ 34.  Although she sought to make her 
cooperation complete, for the reasons that follow, that desire was stymied. 
Pursuant to the plea agreement in this matter, the government agreed to 
apprise the Court of “the nature and the extent of the defendant’s cooperation and 
any other mitigating circumstances indicative of the defendant’s rehabilitative 
intent by assuming the fundamental civic duty of reporting crime.”  See Doc. 29 
at 6.  Three days after a December 20, 2021, overture to defense counsel wherein 
the government expressed its desire to debrief Ms. Watson, Ms. Watson confirmed 
the identity of three individuals of interest with the government and then proposed 
dates for a debriefing.8  No date was set.  Rather, a plea agreement was prepared 
containing USSG § 5K1.1 language.  On March 3, 2022, Ms. Watson was advised 
that her acquiescence to the plea agreement would be a precondition to setting a 
date for a debriefing.9  Following Ms. Watson’s acquiescence of the government’s 
plea agreement on March 10, 2022, see Doc. 29 at 22, however, no debriefing has 
been set.  
 
 
 
8 Written memorializations that corroborate these assertions are not annexed to this 
memorandum but will be provided to the Court at sentencing should the Court so desire.   
 
9 See Footnote 8, supra. 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 7 of 22 PageID 189

8 
Where the government does not file a motion regarding substantial 
assistance under U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, the defendant may nonetheless benefit from her 
efforts to cooperate as such effort speak to the defendant’s character. United States 
v. Fernandez, 443 F.3d 19, 33 (2nd Cir. 2006) cert. denied 549 U.S. 882 (2006); 
United States v. Doe, 398 F.3d 1254, 1260-61 (10th Cir. 2005); see e.g., United 
States v. Arceo, 535 F.3d 679, 688 (7th Cir. 2008).  In this case, after soliciting Ms. 
Watson’s participation in a debriefing, the government confirmed the identity of 
three persons of interest Ms. Watson provided.  After Ms. Watson fulfilling the 
government’s requirement to enter into a plea agreement, the government elected 
not to debrief Ms. Watson.  As such, Ms. Watson respectfully seeks consideration 
of her solicited non-5K cooperation as a downward-variance factor. 
2. 
The history and the characteristics of Edrica Watson 
The realm of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) includes consideration of the defendant’s 
life history.  See United States v. Battiest, 553 F.3d 1132, 1136 (8th Cir. 2009) cert. 
denied 556 U.S. 1265 (2009).  This only make sense as Ms. Watson has a 
constitutional right to individualized sentencing10 where the Court must approach 
every defendant “as an individual and every case as a unique study in the human 
failings that sometimes mitigate, sometime magnify, the crime and the 
punishment to ensue,” Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 113 (1996).  As such, 
and in addition to the compelling offense and rehabilitation factors presented in 
 
10 United States v. Brown, 772 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2014). 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 8 of 22 PageID 190

9 
Part 1 of this memo, Ms. Watson now respectfully draws the Court’s attention to 
the April 9, 2022, letter of Laura Simon (appearing as pages 19-20 0f the PSR), the 
April 11, 2022, letter of Randy Simon (appearing as pages 21-22 of the PSR) and 
the following documents annexed hereto: 
“Exhibit B” 
May 16, 2022, letter from Gina Louis, a friend of 
Ms. Watson. 
 
“Exhibit C” 
May 13, 2022, letter from Jaleisce Williams Aidoo, a co-
worker of Ms. Watson. 
 
“Exhibit D” 
April 30, 2022, letter from Judele Boireau, a co-worker 
of Ms. Watson. 
 
While each of the aforementioned documents speaks for itself, all of them 
serve to emphasize and embellish the multiple aspects of Ms. Watson’s character 
and history the Court should take into consideration in fashioning Ms. Watson’s 
sentence. 
(2)(A).  Remarkable professionalism and good deeds 
Reached by Officer Petersen for comment, Mr. Simon confirmed that his 
father is under the care of Ms. Watson at The Terraces residential-care facility.  
See PSR ¶ 78.  Howard Simon is 97 years old, bedridden, hard of hearing and 
suffers from dementia.  Id.  Characterizing Ms. Watson as “extraordinary,” Mr. 
Simon revealed his father: “needs stimulation, and the defendant was able to come 
up with ways to get him involved and has increased Howard’s quality of life.  
Randy [Simon] stated that the defendant has gotten his father to play games such 
as checkers, and interact in ways that no one has tried before.”  Id.  Turning to 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 9 of 22 PageID 191

10 
Mr. Simon’s April 11 letter at Page 21 of the PSR, Mr. Simon underscores that when 
he travels from Los Angeles to visit his father: 
Edrica always takes extra time to assist me.  She even helped me get 
[my father] into a wheelchair and outside – something no one else at 
Renaissance has ever told us was possible!  Words cannot describe 
how happy that made Dad.  He asks for Edrica every night, and if 
anything happens to her, he will be despondent.  All the quality care 
he now experiences from her will return to the mediocre level that 
seems to be the standard these days at care facilities. 
 
Additionally: 
 
Please make sure that everyone involved understands the whole 
picture here – Edrica made a terrible mistake, but my sister and I can 
speak to her wonderful character, her generosity, her responsible and 
meticulous care of our father, and the high ethical standards she 
brings to her work.   
 
PSR at page 22. 
 
Speaking for herself, and providing additional texture, Mr. Simon’s sister, Laura, 
informs she met Edrica Watson in July 2021 at a time when Ms. Simon was upset 
“over my father’s worsening dementia and physical condition.”  See PSR at page 
19.  But things got better for Ms. Simon and she continues: 
Edrica told me to contact her anytime and assured me she’d do her 
best to help my dad.   
 
And boy did she come through for us!  My dad became badly 
depressed when he stopped being able to hear, despite hearing aids 
and an amplifier.  It was Edrica who found a new way to 
communicate with him using dry erase boards!  She informed the 
entire care staff of the need to use them.  My dad was thrilled!  Every 
time I visited from Connecticut he would say who is the genius who 
thought of this?’ and I would say Edrica!  He became a new person 
having a communication lifeline again. 
 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 10 of 22 PageID 192

11 
On the nights when Edrica has shifts, dad gets so excited to see her.  
She spends extra time, although not part of her job, keeping him 
company.  Because of his deafness we can’t communicate with him 
by phone anymore, but Edrica makes a point of Face-timing us every 
night she works so we can see him, wave and blow kisses.  On nights 
when she doesn’t work, my dad frequently yells ‘help help help’ and is 
agitated in the night.  But when she’s on duty, he’s much more 
content and peaceful. 
 
Even though it is not part of her job duties, Edrica keeps thinking of 
ways to help my dad, which is challenging since he can’t move, hear, 
or articulate his needs.  A few weeks ago, when I Face-timed him I 
saw he was flipping through picture magazines Edrica bought him.  
When he was very agitated after his wife went to the hospital, Edrica 
held his hand and stayed with him until he fell asleep. 
 
I was thrilled to see that she got him playing a matching game on the 
iPad – after months of me asking the staff to engage him more.  No 
one else had gotten him to play games like that.  Not any of the 
private aides I hired, no CNA or nurse, not even the recreation staff 
(whose job it is to engage the residents with activities) were able to get 
him going!  But this is another example of how Edrica goes the extra 
mile – or rather many miles – to make her patients happy and bring 
fulfillment into their devoid lives. 
 
Edrica is by far the best, most compassionate, responsible, and high-
caliber nurse my dad has ever experienced in his long years of 
confined long-term care at a facility.  If all staff were nearly as stellar 
as Edrica, I would not be the nervous wreck that I have become! 
 
PSR at pages 19-20. 
 
Unambiguously endorsing the high professional esteem with which the Simons 
hold Ms. Watson, and well before the Simons ever met Ms. Watson, at “Exhibit D,” 
Ms. Boireau offers: 
Edrica has a heart of gold, she cares for all of her residents as if they 
were family members.  She is well loved by staff and our residents as 
well.  Some residents always talk about how during Hurricane Irma 
the nurses were there with them through it all.  I always hear how 
Edrica and her kids stayed at the facility for three days and the kids 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 11 of 22 PageID 193

12 
colored and played games with all the residents[.]  [T]ill this day it 
still touches the residents hearts and they light up every time they see 
here.  I have seen her go above and beyond for her residents and even 
her co-workers.  Truly, we need great nurses like Edrica. 
 
Ms. Watson’s professional dedication extends into her personal life: Ms. Louis 
informs that it is Ms. Watson “who shows up at work on her day off just to help 
celebrate a resident’s birthday.”  See “Exhibit B.” 
A demonstrated history of good employment may be considered as a factor 
in fashioning an appropriate sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).  See, e.g., United 
States v. Fuson, 215 Fed. Appx. 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2007); United States v. Jones, 
158 F.3d 492, 498 (10th Cir. 1998) (pre-Booker downward departure premised on 
“’the defendant’s long, impressive work story in a situation where good jobs are 
scarce’ finding ‘specifically that he has been employed in a very good position for 
14 years, earning a very high income for the community in which he lives, which is 
an economically depressed area with few job opportunities’”); United States v. 
DiMattina, 885 F.Supp.2d 572, 581-82 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (continuous employment 
one factor considered in supporting downward variance); see also United States v. 
Ruff, 535 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2008).  It is respectfully submitted that Edrica 
Watson is not just a good employee.  She is an exceptional employee. 
Relatedly, the unselfish good deeds of a defendant are a component of the 
defendant’s history and characteristics the Court may consider in mitigation of 
sentence.  See, e.g., United States v. Adelson, 441 F.Supp.2d 506, 513-14 (S.D.N.Y. 
2006); see also United States v. Vrdolyak, 593 F.3d 676, 689 (7th Cir. 2010) 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 12 of 22 PageID 194

13 
(Hamilton, J., dissenting) cert. denied 131 S.Ct. 200 (2010).11  In addition to the 
preceding discussion, at “Exhibit B” Ms. Louis advises:  
[E]very end of school year [Ms. Watson] boxes up all her kid’s 
belongings that they have either outgrown or wish to give away, then 
she asks her family or friends if they know of any single Moms who 
could use these things.  Most moms don’t even know it’s her that is 
giving, she does it without wanting everyone to know.  She always 
says, ‘it’s better from the heart and not the mouth.’  She is always 
trying to help women in situations like herself.  She teaches her kids 
the importance of helping others and giving. 
 
See also “Exhibit D” (Ms. Boireau relating the episode at work wherein although 
“[a] stranger to me at that time, Edrica saw my frustration and immediately 
reached out to help me.  Even though she had her own floor and residents to take 
care of she made it her business to help and guide me through the system”). 
 
(2)(B). 
Ms. Watson’s family 
As the father of her two children is serving a term of incarceration, 
Ms. Watson is the sole provider for her children.  See PSR ¶ 60.  The younger of 
her children suffers from asthma and has a history of pneumonia and Respiratory 
Syncytial Virus.  Id.  Ms. Watson’s mother describes her as a “brilliant mother 
who works hard and has a beautiful soul.”  See PSR ¶ 62.  Unsurprisingly, then, 
 
11 “The most important mitigating information here involved not the ‘checkbook charity’ 
that can be easy for the wealthy, but many instances in which the defendant provided 
hands-on help in long-term relationships with people in need, or where he provided 
generous help anonymously.  The district judge’s comments show that he was much 
more impressed by these many instances of the defendant’s generosity and kindness with 
his time and influence in situations where there was no visibility of public reward for his 
actions.”  Vrdolyak, supra.  As demonstrated in this memo, the source of Ms. Watson’s 
generosity clearly was moderate and self-effacing. 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 13 of 22 PageID 195

14 
several contributors to this sentencing memo are bewildered by Ms. Watson’s 
participation in the offense at bar.  See PSR at page 21 (“[i]t is my understanding 
she has never been in trouble before, and I was honestly quite surprised to hear 
she was involved in making false statements to a bank.  This seems so out of 
character to the Edrica I know”);  Ms. Louis at “Exhibit B” (“I was aware of a guy 
in her life whom I always felt manipulated and dominated her.  For some reason 
she always seemed unable or unwilling to stand up to him”); Ms. Aidoo at “Exhibit 
C” (“By no means is this a reflection of her true character at all.  To know her is to 
love her.  This was a mistake and a matter of being at the wrong place at the wrong 
time with the wrong people”). 
Ms. Aidoo, a single mother herself who has known Ms. Watson for over a 
decade, emphasized that Ms. Watson has had little or no support raising her 
children: 
While there is certainly no excuse or justification for her actions, I do 
believe that Edrica is extremely apologetic for her involvement.  My 
request for leniency is out of my concern for her children.  She is all 
they have and losing her to any time away will force them into the care 
of an estranged family or at worst the government if no one is able to 
take on the responsibility. 
 
 
“Exhibit C” at 1.   
 
As parental incarceration – particularly incarceration of the sole parent – 
has been demonstrated to directly contribute to the disintegration of the family 
through increased incidence of juvenile delinquency, mental illness, drug abuse, 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 14 of 22 PageID 196

15 
academic decline and subsequent unemployment,12 the Court may consider the 
deleterious effect imprisonment on Ms. Watson will have on her nine- and 10-year-
old children.  United States v. Rivera, 994 F.2d 942, 953-54 (1st Cir. 1993) (pre-
Booker) (citing cases); United States v. Chambers, 885 F.Supp. 12, 14-15 (D.D.C. 
1995 (pre-Booker); United States v. Strong, No. 96-CR-392-2, 1996 WL 745397, 
*1 (N.D. Ill. 1996) (pre-Booker) (citing United States v. Pena, 930 F.2d 1486, 1494-
95 (10th Cir. 1991) (“[c]ourts have found that when a defendant is the sole caretaker 
for others that qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance”) see United States v. 
Alba, 933 F.2d 1117, 1122 (2nd Cir. 1991) (“[t]he sentencing court found that 
Gonzalez' incarceration in accordance with the Guidelines might well result in the 
destruction of an otherwise strong family unit and concluded that these 
circumstances were sufficiently extraordinary in this case to support a downward 
departure”); United States v. Hammond, 37 F.Supp.2d 204, 207 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) 
(“[a] sentence without a downward departure would contribute to the needless 
suffering on young, innocent children”); see also United States v. Antonakopoulos, 
399 F.3d 68, 83 (1st Cir. 2007) (failure to secure downward departure for parental 
responsibility pre-Booker does not foreclose basis for downward variance on same 
ground post-Booker).  Such an argument is only fortified where the health of one 
of the defendant’s children -- as in this case -- is not the best.   
 
 
 
12  See generally Austin, Clear, et. al, Unlocking America: Why and How to Reduce 
America’s Prison Population, Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (Nov. 
2007). 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 15 of 22 PageID 197

16 
(2)(C). 
No criminal history 
It is not as if Ms. Watson has remote and/or minor criminal history.  She 
has none. 
The striking incongruity differentiating Ms. Watson’s criminal act from her 
otherwise law-abiding nature may be considered to support a downward variance.  
See, e.g., United States v. Kathman, 490 F.3d 520, 526 (6th Cir. 2007); United 
States v. Hadash, 408 F.3d 1080, 1084 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jones, No. 
07-40086-01-RDR, 2007 WL 4239456, *1 (D.Kan. 2007); see also United States 
v. DeVegter, 439 F.3d 1299, 1306 (11th Cir. 2006) (addressing a pre-Booker 
determination on an “aberrant behavior” departure and noting that such a 
departure embraces (1) a single criminal occurrence or transaction, (2) of limited 
duration that (3) represents a marked deviation from an otherwise law-abiding 
life); United States v. Jones, 158 F.3d 492, 500 (10th Cir. 1998) (pre-Booker); 
United States v. Morales, 972 F.2d 1007, 1011 (9th Cir. 1992) cert. denied 507 U.S. 
1012 (1993) (pre-Booker); United States v. Baker, 804 F.Supp. 19, 21 (N.D.Cal. 
1992) appeal dismissed at 8 F.3d 33 (9th Cir. 1993) (pre-Booker). 
(2)(D).  The full effect of this felony conviction on this licensed nurse 
Although Ms. Watson “eats, breathes and sleeps” nursing, see PSR ¶ 80, the 
PSR notes she “will likely lose her nursing career as a result of the instant case, 
which in addition to the forfeiture and restitution owed in this case, will also serve 
as a punishment.”  See PSR ¶ 98; see also PSR at page 21.13  As to the specific, 
 
13 Randy Simon writes: “Most importantly, I believe Edrica losing her nursing license over 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 16 of 22 PageID 198

17 
collateral consequence of loss of professional license, the Court may consider this 
potentiality in the sentencing calculus as Ms. Watson alone was charged with this 
offense and abused no professional trust in the commission of this crime.  See 
generally United States v. Howard, 28 F.4th 180, 208-09 (11th Cir. 2022) (no abuse 
of professional trust); Howard, 28 F.4th at 216-17 (no co-defendant, hence no 
disparity).  As to the much more generalized stigma of a felony conviction and the 
irreparable harm to reputation and occupational opportunities that flow from such 
a conviction, the Court should take into consideration this permanent hindrance 
when fashioning a sanction not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of 
sentencing.  See generally United States v. Prosperi, 686 F.3d 32, 47-48 (1st Cir. 
2012); United States v. Wulff, 758 F.2d 1121, 1125 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. 
Smith, 683 F.2d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir. 1982).  No matter what lies ahead for this 40-
year-old defendant, she will forever suffer occupational restrictions based entirely 
upon this felony conviction. 
 
 
 
this court be an undeserved LIFE SENTENCE.  She overcame many odds and worked 
hard to get her nursing license, and is a standout who makes a significant improvement 
in the many lives she touches every day, like our Dad’s.  She needs this career to support 
her kids, and she shouldn’t lose it over this stupid and out-of-character mistake she made.  
Surely there must be a way for you, the prosecutor and judge to put your heads together 
and come up with a creative solution, like changing her plea to a misdemeanor, so she can 
avoid the automatic loss of her nursing license that her current guilty plea will trigger.”  
Id. (emphasis in original).  Subsequently, Mr. Simon pleads: “[P]lease preserve her 
nursing license so she can continue helping people like my Dad as only she can, while also 
providing for her children.”  Id. at page 22.    
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 17 of 22 PageID 199

18 
(2)(E). 
Compliance with conditions of release 
At her December 15, 2021, initial appearance, Ms. Watson was released on 
her own recognizance.  See PSR at page 1.  On the one hand, compliance with a 
Court Order merely requiring Ms. Watson to lawfully conduct herself far from a 
Herculean challenge for Ms. Watson.  On the other hand, it is always true that a 
defendant’s performance and efforts while on pre-trial conditions are 
demonstrations of good character and rehabilitation, suitable for consideration 
not only as factors under § 3553(a) -- see, e.g., United States v. Munoz-Nava, 524 
F.3d 1137, 1148-49 (10th Cir. 2008); United States v. Baker, 502 F.3d 465, 467 (6th 
Cir. 2007) -- but also of the defendant’s willingness to obey restrictions put in place 
by the Court that serve as a reliable and direct indicator that Ms. Watson shall 
comply with the demands of a probationary term.  See generally United States v. 
Cox, 271 F.Supp.3d 1085, 1087, 1090 (S.D. Iowa 2017) (noting, among many 
factors, “[d]efendant has fully complied with all conditions of her pre-trial release” 
in imposing a probationary term where defendant’s advisory guideline range was 
46-57 months); United States v. Jaber, 362 F.Supp.2d 365, 383 (D. Mass. 2005) 
(noting near perfect record on pre-trial release as one factor in imposing a term of 
probation where the defendant’s advisory guideline range was 57-71 months).  Cf. 
United States v. Castro, 500 F.Supp.2d 327, 330-31 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (examining 
compliance with U.S. Pre-Trial Services in deeming defendant “a good candidate 
for voluntary surrender”). 
 
 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 18 of 22 PageID 200

19 
3. 
Conclusion 
Before the Court is a 40-year-old, single mother of two pre-teen children 
with no criminal history but with a 30-year history of unwholesome contact with 
her unindicated confederate.  Following a well-above average academic career, 
Ms. Watson has been employed in the nursing field since 2005.  See PSR ¶¶ 73-
74, 77 & 79.14  
In considering the four factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2), and as they apply 
to Ms. Watson, the defendant respectfully submits: 
RETRIBUTION: 
As a starting point in the process of ensuring there is just 
punishment for this offense, it is respectfully noted that 
all felonies are serious.15  The seriousness of this offense 
is moderated by its non-violent nature and  specifically 
moderated by the fact that it was perpetrated against a 
solitary, corporate entity.  See PSR ¶ 30.  Further, Ms. 
Watson used no inside knowledge in the perpetration of 
the fraud nor did the completion of the offense 
disadvantage legitimate participants. 16  Instead, while 
an average participant in this offense, Ms. Watson was 
under the influence of an unindicted confederate who 
scripted all of Ms. Watson’s fraudulent communications 
and provided her all of the fraudulent documentation.  
See PSR ¶¶ 23, 26, 27 & 98. 
 
DETERRENCE: 
Ms. Watson has no criminal history.  She has no 
personal characteristics suggesting a criminal nature. 
With that noted, this felony conviction and the restitution 
 
14 In addition to the bases for downward variance advanced in Parts 1 and 2 of this memo, 
it is noteworthy that a steady history of employment is, in itself, a factor in the 
consideration of a downward variance.  See United States v. DiMattina, 885 F.Supp.2d 
572, 582-82 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (continuous employment since high-school graduation); see 
also United States v Ruff, 535 F.3d 999, 1001 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Fuson, 215 
F. App’x 468, 471 (6th Cir. 2007).  
  
15 United States v. Mann, 536 F.Supp.3d 173, 181 (W.D. Mich. 2021). 
16 See, e.g., United States v. Cole, 622 F.Supp.2d 632, 637-38 (N.D. Ohio 2008). 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 19 of 22 PageID 201

20 
that Ms. Watson will pay entirely on her own shall 
certainly deter Ms. Watson in at least the following ways: 
occupational 
advancement, 
future 
employment, 
financial prosperity and the desire for home ownership – 
sadly, the incipient and disastrous rationale for this 
criminal venture.  It is respectfully submitted that an 
incarcerative sentence will serve no further deterrent 
purpose for this defendant.  
 
INCAPACITATION: 
So long as the Court deems the presentation as to 
retribution and deterrence reasonable, it is respectfully 
submitted that incapacitation of Edrica Watson through 
removal from society will serve only to incapacitate her 
children by eliminating her ability to physically, 
emotionally and financially care for her children. 
 
REHABILITATION: 
The unindicted participant in this offense has been a 
pollutant in Ms. Watson’s life since she was nine years 
old.  At page 16 of this memo, Ms. Louis wonders why 
Ms. Watson “always seemed unable or unwilling to stand 
up to him.” While it is surely possible that Ms. Watson’s 
would have committed some criminal offense at some 
time in her life, it is surely impossible that Ms. Watson 
would not have and could not have committed this 
offense 
but 
for 
the 
noxious 
presence 
of 
L.P.  
Unquestionably, mental-health treatment available 
through the Office of Probation while on supervised 
release would benefit Ms. Watson. 
 
In arriving at a sentence for Ms. Watson that (i) takes into account her 
history and characteristics, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and (ii) that is sufficient but 
not greater than necessary to comply with the need for retribution, deterrence, 
incapacitation and rehabilitation, see 18 USC § 3553(a)(2), see also Footnote 1, 
supra, and (iii) that embodies Ms. Watson’s constitutional right to individualized 
sentencing, see Koon, supra; Brown, supra, Ms. Watson respectfully submits that 
before the Court is a mother of two children whose character is blackened by one 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 20 of 22 PageID 202

21 
and only one episode in her life – the offense conduct at bar.  Ms. Watson not only 
benefits from a term of supervised release, but it is respectfully submitted that a 
sentence of supervised release will adequately address all of the constitutional and 
statutory factors inventoried in the preceding sentence. 17   United States v. 
Holland, 874 F.2d 1470, 1475 (11th Cir. 1989) (twin goals of probationary sentence 
are rehabilitation of the probationer and protection of the public). 
For the reasons appearing in the PSR, in this memorandum and to be 
presented at the forthcoming sentencing hearing in this matter, Mr. Watson 
respectfully seeks a downward variance and asks the Court to consider a sentence 
of time-served to be followed by a term of supervised release. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
A. Fitzgerald Hall, Esq. 
Federal Defender 
Middle District of Florida 
 
/s/ James Lappan         
James Lappan, Esq. 
Florida Bar No. 0160792 
Assistant Federal Defender 
1514 Broadway, Suite 301 
Fort Myers, Florida 33901 
Telephone: 239-334-0397 
Fax: 239-334-4109 
 
 
17 See, e.g., Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 48, 53-54 (2007) (as probationers are 
subject to conditions that substantially restrict their freedom, term of probation may be 
reasonable under § 3553(a) so long as it takes into account real conduct and circum-
stances).  See generally United States v. Edwards, 595 F.3d 1004, 1016 n.9 (9th Cir. 
2010) (quoting Senate Report No. 98-225 [August 4, 1983] at 92: “It may very often be 
that release on probation under conditions designed to fit the particular situation will 
adequately satisfy any appropriate deterrent of punitive purpose”). 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 21 of 22 PageID 203

22 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this the 8th day of June 2022, a true copy of 
the foregoing was electronically filed and served electronically to Jesus Casas, 
Office of the United States Attorney, 2110 First Street, Fort Myers, Florida. 
 
/s/ James Lappan         
James Lappan, Esq. 
Assistant Federal Defender 
Case 2:21-cr-00107-SPC-KRH     Document 44     Filed 06/08/22     Page 22 of 22 PageID 204

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flmd.396888.44.0.pdf

Size

305,029 bytes

SHA-256

2157bba296b8013afa4ff72276a5478656446a4f3d4955b9592ea228c2eb2bce

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flmd.396888.44.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)